rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| reply to Kilroy
Re: Listening to the public
The Judge should have been brought before a performance review committee and probably fired and disbarred for his actions. The Judge was grossly negligent for even agreeing to hear an ex-parte motion from a foreign bank against an Australian living in Kenya. Along with the half a dozen other errors it's apparent from his original ruling he didn't even bother reading or paying attention to the merits of the case including if Wikileaks was even properly served, contrary to what he claimed publicly. That is unless you think a vague email about pursuing legal action in 3 separate countries constitutes service.
Not only should he be censured the Hollywood lawyers representing the bank should be disbarred for their conduct as well, considering they told the Judge they served Wikileaks properly (an out and out lie) and for presenting an ex-parte motion where the court clearly had NO jurisdiction and they knew it. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Judge: "Ooops. My bad."
Yep. Bad, indeed. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to rahvin112
Re: Listening to the public
Now, Wikileak should bring about a lawsuit against the bank for it's frivolous actions. Furthermore, they should file a complaint with the bar and send that judge for a judicial review as he needs reprimanded or disbarred. This judge made a very poor decision that violated the Constitution's right to free speech and press. This is nothing that should be taken lightly. |
|
