Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:19:58 PM
Since I filed my lawsuit almost seven years ago, I have spent more than $30,000 and have but little to show for it
I am still trying to examine and understand how it is that a judicial retention commission could decide that my judge was such an asset to the community that there was no need to inform the electorate about my lawsuit.
Time for another thought experiment:
Let's join the board of directors of the local architecture firm of Dewey, Chetam, & Howe, or DCH as they like to refer to themselves. They are discussing a personnel matter.
It happens that one of their more minor customers, a customer they didn't even know they had, has just come forward with evidence that one of their employees, Bill, was either accidently or intentionally derelict in his duties. Whether it was accidental or intentional, Bill had already cost the customer $30,000 and if his performance continued unchecked, was likely to cost him even more.
Complicating the issue was the fact that every Sunday since he had been employed, Bill came to the office and cleaned the executive washroom with a toothbrush. The board considered him an asset to the organization.
Or the board might say nothing and simply pray that nothing else happens. He is, after all, an asset to the organization!
Or, the board might offer Bill additional training and supervision and encourage him to make the client whole.
One alternative would be to cut Bill loose with a gold watch and a ringing endorsement.
We live in a litigatous society, and the board has a problem. If Bill stays employed and continues to damage this client or damages others, the litigation liability might put DCH out of business. It actually could happen quickly.
It is extremely unlikely, with Trial Lawyers always on the lookout for opportunities to enrich themselves, that DCH would ever consider saying nothing.
This thought experiment can only go so far. The rules for the government are completely different than they are for private enterprise. The government gives itself and its employees such broad immunity that a litigant who is damaged by the actions or inaction of a judge, even over a period of years, has no ability to make himself whole.
Given that, a retention commission that is presented with evidence that a judge has damaged a litigant by action or inaction would have a moral obligation, and an ethical obligation to take some action to protect the public, if only because members of the public, acting individually are powerless to protect themselves.