Judges as Cherry Pickers of Fact?

renfred

New Member
Did you by any chance read the whole document or did you just cherry pick the part you wanted? :whistle:

You said it, not me.

I'll leave the cherry picking of material fact as well as the aberration of undisputed, uncontroverted material fact to Judge Karen H. Abrams and her judicial colleagues who are willing to perpetuate these aberrations at the expense of the truth and the proper administration of justice.

The motivation for consciously and deliberately fabricating the factual record in a case? Rent money? The career of a local settlement attorney who is part of the inner circle? The possibility of reprimand and/or sanctions? Judicial collegiality at its worst?

It wouldn't be fair for me to speculate.

The degree of respect that I have for an individual judge is equal to that judge's degree of respect for the legal system and the ethical principles that are inherent with their position of public trust. I think your average citizen feels the same way.
 

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
You said it, not me.

I'll leave the cherry picking of material fact as well as the aberration of undisputed, uncontroverted material fact to Judge Karen H. Abrams and her judicial colleagues who are willing to perpetuate these aberrations at the expense of the truth and the proper administration of justice.

The motivation for consciously and deliberately fabricating the factual record in a case? Rent money? The career of a local settlement attorney who is part of the inner circle? The possibility of reprimand and/or sanctions? Judicial collegiality at its worst?

It wouldn't be fair for me to speculate.

The degree of respect that I have for an individual judge is equal to that judge's degree of respect for the legal system and the ethical principles that are inherent with their position of public trust. I think your average citizen feels the same way.

Wow! Had to read that twice (put on my glasses the second time). If this is true, it's a problem.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Wow! Had to read that twice (put on my glasses the second time). If this is true, it's a problem.

Operative sentence.

Renfred has it in for Karen Abrams for some reason, and thinks it's a very big deal that she rents her old office space to an attorney. He thinks that when this attorney goes before Judge Abrams, she'll give him special consideration.

So far there is no evidence that Judge Abrams has ever done any such thing, but Renfred isn't letting that stop him. He's SURE Judge Abrams is being unethical and, darn it, he's going to ferret it out if it takes his whole lifetime to do it. :yay:
 

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
Operative sentence.

Renfred has it in for Karen Abrams for some reason, and thinks it's a very big deal that she rents her old office space to an attorney. He thinks that when this attorney goes before Judge Abrams, she'll give him special consideration.

So far there is no evidence that Judge Abrams has ever done any such thing, but Renfred isn't letting that stop him. He's SURE Judge Abrams is being unethical and, darn it, he's going to ferret it out if it takes his whole lifetime to do it. :yay:

I wouldn't know either way. I'm just trying to make sure I don't get in front of ANY judge for any reason!

:flowers:
 

renfred

New Member
Judges as Cherry Pickers of Fact

Operative sentence.

Renfred has it in for Karen Abrams for some reason, and thinks it's a very big deal that she rents her old office space to an attorney. He thinks that when this attorney goes before Judge Abrams, she'll give him special consideration.

So far there is no evidence that Judge Abrams has ever done any such thing, but Renfred isn't letting that stop him. He's SURE Judge Abrams is being unethical and, darn it, he's going to ferret it out if it takes his whole lifetime to do it. :yay:

The issue you are referring to has recently(09-25-2007) been considered by the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee. The published opinion is available at their website:

http://www.courts.state.md.us/ethics/pdfs/2007_10.pdf

"Disclosure and/or Recusal of Judge Who Leases Property to a Lawyer Who Appears Before the Judge

Issue: Is a judge required to disclose the nature of the relationship and/or recuse himself/herself from cases involving an attorney who leases office space from the judge?

Answer: A judge must disclose the nature of the relationship to the parties and their clients so that the parties may have a chance to object or waive their objections. If the parties do not agree to waive the judge’s disqualification, the judge should recuse himself/herself unless there are compelling circumstances to the contrary."

Now that it has been established by the MD Judicial Ethics Committee that her conduct is not acceptable, and will no longer be tolerated, this new thread contemplates a separate but related topic.
 

greyhound

New Member
Judges & Lawyers go out to lunch and dinner together on a regulat basis, even the ones who are in cases together.
 

ImnoMensa

New Member
Would be nice to know the truth.

Operative sentence.

Renfred has it in for Karen Abrams for some reason, and thinks it's a very big deal that she rents her old office space to an attorney. He thinks that when this attorney goes before Judge Abrams, she'll give him special consideration.

So far there is no evidence that Judge Abrams has ever done any such thing, but Renfred isn't letting that stop him. He's SURE Judge Abrams is being unethical and, darn it, he's going to ferret it out if it takes his whole lifetime to do it. :yay:


I can't help but think that Judge Abrams ruled against him for some reason and he is taking his best shot. I dont see the big deal here,but he is about to have a hemmhorage over this. Maybe now that we see the ruling he can go somewhere and get off on it, have his pathetic revenge ,and move on with his life.
 

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
I can't help but think that Judge Abrams ruled against him for some reason and he is taking his best shot. I dont see the big deal here,but he is about to have a hemmhorage over this. Maybe now that we see the ruling he can go somewhere and get off on it, have his pathetic revenge ,and move on with his life.

If the judge is wrong, she's wrong. She should apologize (or whatever they do), and make sure it doesn't happen again. If I were involved in a case before this judge I certainly would now look a little more closely at the parties involved. I probably would anyway since I don't know much about anything in SoMD outside of Charles.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Now that it has been established by the MD Judicial Ethics Committee that her conduct is not acceptable, and will no longer be tolerated, this new thread contemplates a separate but related topic.
Up until the Judge asked for clarification it was established in Maryland that this type of relationship was not an ethical issue. Now given precedent in other states the ethics committee has changed it's view which does not mean that the judge had done anything wrong but that it is being seen in a differing light. You should not twist things about like you have.

And again what is your real beef with the judge?
 

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
Up until the Judge asked for clarification it was established in Maryland that this type of relationship was not an ethical issue. Now given precedent in other states the ethics committee has changed it's view which does not mean that the judge had done anything wrong but that it is being seen in a differing light. You should not twist things about like you have.

Ah, it wasn't clear to me that the Judge had asked for clarification. I had assumed (silly me) that a complaint was filed by a defendant who felt wronged.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
This isn't a very interesting scandal. If Judge Abrams has a love child by the WWN BatBoy, THAT would be interesting.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Ah, it wasn't clear to me that the Judge had asked for clarification. I had assumed (silly me) that a complaint was filed by a defendant who felt wronged.
According to Renfred in another thread he posted that it was Judge Abrams that requested clarification to her financial arrangment with the lawyer that had asked for a ruling. Now he is twisting it around and saying that she was in violation of a rule of conduct that did not exist until now.
 

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
According to Renfred in another thread he posted that it was Judge Abrams that requested clarification to her financial arrangment with the lawyer that had asked for a ruling. Now he is twisting it around and saying that she was in violation of a rule of conduct that did not exist until now.

I hadn't followed all the twists and turns in this debate. Thanks for the clarification.
 

Pete

Repete
I hadn't followed all the twists and turns in this debate. Thanks for the clarification.

Renfred also neglects to say in his conspiracy theory is that the lawyer who rents her old office space from her is a tax lawyer and he cannot say that the lawyer has ever actually been in her court before.
 

renfred

New Member
According to Renfred in another thread he posted that it was Judge Abrams that requested clarification to her financial arrangment with the lawyer that had asked for a ruling. Now he is twisting it around and saying that she was in violation of a rule of conduct that did not exist until now.

Quote from other post:

"According to the MD Judicial Ethics Committee website:

Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee

"A request for the opinion of the Committee may be made only by a State official in the Judicial Branch, as to the proper interpretation of an ethics provision as applied to that State official, or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, as to the proper interpretation of an ethics provision."

That leaves Judge Abrams, or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals as the author of the request for opinion."

******************************************

So you see Ken King, you are once again the one who is twisting around facts. As I said to someone just the other day, the person or party who is forced to fabricate and or misrepresent the record, is most likely the person or party who is at the losing end of an argument. Unfortunately, Judge Abrams and some of her judicial colleagues have as much respect for the factual record as you do. What doesn't fit in, just fabricate out of thin air. What doesn't support your argument, alter or omit. When the chronological order of events does not support your argument, just change the chronology.

As far as I'm concerned, the MD Judcial Ethics Committee has cleared up any question as to the judge renting and failing to disclose. Trying to defend her conduct regarding the rental issue is a fool's errand now. I'd like to hear you defend the conscious and deliberate fabrication of the factual record by a judge in a court case?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
So you see Ken King, you are once again the one who is twisting around facts. As I said to someone just the other day, the person or party who is forced to fabricate and or misrepresent the record, is most likely the person or party who is at the losing end of an argument. Unfortunately, Judge Abrams and some of her judicial colleagues have as much respect for the factual record as you do. What doesn't fit in, just fabricate out of thin air. What doesn't support your argument, alter or omit. When the chronological order of events does not support your argument, just change the chronology.

As far as I'm concerned, the MD Judcial Ethics Committee has cleared up any question as to the judge renting and failing to disclose. Trying to defend her conduct regarding the rental issue is a fool's errand now. I'd like to hear you defend the conscious and deliberate fabrication of the factual record by a judge in a court case?
Lets look at some of the facts by you answering these two questions.
1. Prior to the opinion issued was it or was it not considered ethical for a sitting judge to rent property to a practicing lawyer or a state agency that could appear before them?
2. Is the opinion binding on past activity of the party involved or only to future activity?

I'll give you a clue, the answer for number 1 is it was not an ethical issue as had been previously decided. The answer for number 2 is that it only applies to the future so anything in the past is not an issue.

Finally, why have you failed to come clean with your true issue with the judge. What is this fabrication of factual record you speak of? Were you caught getting freaky with a goat or something and lost your argument that it was consensual because the goat called you baaaaaaby?
 
Last edited:

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Quote from other post:

"According to the MD Judicial Ethics Committee website:

Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee

"A request for the opinion of the Committee may be made only by a State official in the Judicial Branch, as to the proper interpretation of an ethics provision as applied to that State official, or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, as to the proper interpretation of an ethics provision."

That leaves Judge Abrams, or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals as the author of the request for opinion."

******************************************
As to this comment in bold above if you had read this part of the opinion it would be obvious as to whom it was that requested the opinion.
Application: The Judicial Ethics Committee cautions that this opinion is applicable only prospectively and only to the conduct of the requestor described in this opinion, to the extent of the requestor’s compliance with this opinion. Omission or misstatement of a material fact in the written request for opinion negates reliance on this opinion.

Additionally, this opinion should not be considered to be binding indefinitely. The passage of time may result in amendment to the applicable law and/or developments in the area of judicial ethics generally or in changes of facts that could affect the conclusion of the Committee. If you engage in a continuing course of conduct, you should keep abreast of developments in the area of judicial ethics and, in the event of a change in that area or a change in facts, submit an updated request to the Committee.
 

renfred

New Member
Requestor

As to this comment in bold above if you had read this part of the opinion it would be obvious as to whom it was that requested the opinion.

The Application disclaimer appears at the end of every Opinion. Unless you have spoken with Judge Abrams yourself and she has divulged this information to you, and you choose to believe her, the requestor of this opinion still remains an unknown to you.

Even if Abrams did request the opinion herself, it is very possible that her request was not voluntary, but part of an informal, unpublished reprimand, relating to a complaint filed against her with the MD Commission on Judicial Disabilities.

Think it through. If she did request the opinion, why? Why now? If she didn't submit the request herself, then why did the Chief Judge of the MD Court of Appeals request it?

I personally can't come up with any realistic scenario that casts a positive light on the Judge's predicament regarding this opinion being published on September 25, 2007.
 
Top