Posted 8:18 AM by Creditwrench

Juli, etc:

I received the 'infomercial' of Ron Branson patting himself on the back (with J.A.I.L.).

It saddens me that he has the gall to say "Give me your wealth, and I will give you America" - Ron Branson

As I am a former J.A.I.L.4JUDGES 'follower', and have broken free of the Ron Branson trappings; I believe his statement shows exactly what this man's intent is.

J.A.I.L.4JUDGES is NOT the ONLY Answer; it is but One; there are Many dedicated organizations doing great work on the issues of government/judicial accountability.

United We Stand, Divided We Will Fall, remember that.

Yes, money is needed to make anything happen, but judicial accountability is one of the 'very rare' projects where a little goes a long way. We don't need everybody's wealth, we just need everybody to pitch in a little.

Idaho is gathering signatures for it's Initiative for 2004 law change; what is your state doing?

May God bless and protect all right and all right change.

Rose Johnson, for IJAA 2004
The Idaho Judicial Accountability Act of 2004 A.D.

WWW.IJAA.Net

Judges unfairly biased towards plaintiffs

Article reports that a recent study by the Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia “alleges the state’s civil justice system is made up of judges and justices with election-driven priorities” who “unfairly” favor plaintiffs in civil cases. In addition, a recent West Virginia Chamber of Commerce report blamed the state Supreme Court for “a negative state economy.” The Defense Trial Counsel’s report suggests appointing judges, or at least selecting them through nonpartisan elections, arguing that “there is a general perception that state Supreme Court decisions in civil cases are based on party-oriented issues or ‘with an eye toward popular perception.’” The report is available online at http://www.dtcwv.org. Charles Shumaker, Plaintiffs Unfairly Favored, Group Says, Charleston Gazette, August 27, 2003. http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/Other+News/2003082620

Plaintiffs unfairly favored, group says

By Charles Shumaker
STAFF WRITER

A report from a group of state defense trial lawyers alleges the state’s civil justice system is made up of judges and justices with election-driven priorities and that the state Supreme Court is favorable toward some.

In its yearlong study, which included anonymous interviews with at least a dozen state and federal judges, the Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia said, among other things, that the state’s judicial community unfairly favors plaintiffs in civil cases.

The report’s Tuesday release comes after the state Chamber of Commerce released findings of its own blaming the state Supreme Court for a negative state economy.

One of the purposes of the study was to help West Virginians realize some of the influence the state’s judicial system has on daily life, said William Galeota, the group’s president.

For example, he said media accounts of state Supreme Court decisions likely don’t illustrate the overall meaning of some rulings.

“They [the public] may not see the implications it has on the entire state,” Galeota said during a Tuesday press conference.

The report’s release came several months after group members were given the chance to look over preliminary results.

Since last summer, forums were held at several locations statewide and the group’s membership was polled on numerous subjects to make up the study.

Information from several organizations and sources, including media reports, was also reviewed for the report.

Galeota and several other group members who spoke Tuesday emphasized that the reports shouldn’t be an indictment of any particular judge.

“If this was used to attack an individual, that person would have been named,” said Marc Williams, co-chairman of the committee that produced the report. “There is not one person responsible.”

Also among the 69 findings reported in the trial lawyers’ report:

· There is a general perception that the state’s civil justice system is unfair toward some civil case defendants and is unbalanced.

· Judges and justices who are appointed, not elected, would better serve West Virginia’s judicial system. Or at least, the state should have a nonpartisan election for judges.

· West Virginia’s judicial system is the subject of out-of-state criticism because it has “a very unfavorable legal climate for employers and product manufacturers and sellers.”

· “There is a general perception that certain members of the judiciary turn a blind eye toward conflicts of interest, and engage in improper ex parte contacts and communication both with lawyers and other members of the judiciary.”

· There is a general perception that state Supreme Court decisions in civil cases are based on party-oriented issues or “with an eye toward popular perception.”

· West Virginia juries are generally viewed as being made up of unemployed, uneducated and unsophisticated citizens. “This problem is due in part to the unwillingness of certain educated and employed people to serve and their inclination to avoid jury duty as well as jury selection process weighted in favor of excusing any prospect who may have an opinion or the ability and inclination to form one,” the report states.

“We’re trying to shed light on this subject,” Galeota said. “We expect our report may be cast as an attack. We don’t intend that.”

A copy of the report is available online at www.dtcwv.org.

To contact staff writer Charles Shumaker, use e-mail or call 348-1240.