Stock Market

!-- TradingView Widget BEGIN -->

Friday, October 26, 2012

“I am the law!” “You don’t tell me the law, I interpret the law!” Judge John A. Donald should be removed from bench!

TBR-Memphis, TN
As we approached the division 3 court room, the bailiff was sitting in the court reporters station, leaned back in a chair. He got up telling people or began instructing where not to stand and threatening to take cell phones. A diminutive man, barking at the court participants, as though he was at a carnival attraction! I looked at my contingent and was astounded at the lack of respect within the court room. This same individual attempted to intimidate me moments later, while taking the stand to testify. The overbearing bailiff sat on the court room divider, trying to stare down respondents, arms folded, hovering over folk. This same court official would not accept the portfolio containing evidence from a case, telling the judge, most did not report the evidence earlier. I soon began to realize the judge sanctioned his bailiff activities. Once judge John A. Donald entered the court room, that’s when the caustic lecturing and court decorum began to break down! “I am the law!” “You don’t tell me the law, I interpret the law!”

The lessor in judge John A. Donald’s is assured a win in the court. The realtor or business owner filing as a plaintiff, succeeded in every instance? Judge Donald yelled at a 7 month old pregnant African-American young lady suing for $200 dollars from a security deposit. In a condescending tone, he insulted the unfamiliar folk, just trying to seek justice. He quickly denied my attorney’s request for a motion of continuance to prepare for a trial, “I don’t know why you were allowed to continue this far,” said Judge Donald. We went to trial an hour and a half later approximately. An attorney explained he would be late assisting a client in the third circuit court proceeding. The judge said the attorney never gave him this information. The individual was forced to move forward with the case pro se, trying to put up a defense in lieu of his strange and belligerent behavior? He would not allow crucial evidence that would have exonerated the defense. Yelling at the top of his lungs “You aint no lawyer son!” During the trial; a lawyer was allowed to interrupt the trial and was granted a full motion, when certain attorney's were not? The constant belittling and lecturing, about his sole authority, was always at the fore front within the tribunal! The judge basically said that the law is as he deems, and not what society has mandated or ordained. In my opinion he needs to be removed from the bench, and under go an evaluation as to his judicial fitness. Not the mention totally ignoring the constitution?

Within one of the cases,  the judge basically said that three government agencies [Fire Department, City of Memphis Code Enforcement, & MLGW] had no relevance in the case. Mold, an identified gas leak, holes in the wall, faulty wiring, improper permit stance, material breach of a contract, fraud, no heat, half of the light fixtures inoperable, have no place in the aforementioned matter set before the court. A tenant has no rights whatsoever, and if you try to suggest otherwise, you will suffer the consequences.

 The aforementioned court official feels the tenant has no rights under "Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act." 66-28-102. Application. In one case they adamantly tried to discuss the unconscionable nature of the lease, the fact the supposed agent never accepted a payment from the defendants, or was not allowed to give relevant proof of payments made towards this issue. To include a code enforcement document the plaintiffs client had not complied with on the ensuing date of the trial.  Judge Donald would not  allow a defendant to provide an invoice from work performed, because of the identified slum lord would not make safety of life repairs. “Maintenance issues are not admissible in my court, its about the non-payment of rent,” said Judge John A. Donald.


 He adamantly sabotages an attempt for a respondent to engage a matter pro se.

My question is simple. Is judge John A. Donald working for an unspecified business group? His position seems to benefit a select group of business, engaging in deceptive business practices.