A typical question . . .

I planned to address this question first and then got sidetracked doing a blog update, below. So let me get to it quickly now.

A typical question from an anonymous commenter. (Remember, you can post a comment anonymously. I have turned comment moderation on, which means only I see your comment.)

A reader asks: I had a case in 2008 that was mishandled by [former] judge hinson. I looked in 2008 and 2009 for help. Is there something that can be done against him now, and to change his rulings?

I get this type of question about former judge hinson a lot.

Sadly, the short answer is "No."

First, about changing his ruling. Unfortunately, you have to go back to the sausage factory if you want to try to change a judge's ruling. If you haven't been able to do anything in two years, your time to appeal or pursue some other form of justice is time barred.

But don't kick yourself. The sad fact is that appellate court judges are VERY reluctant to challenge a lower court judge's rulings, no matter how wrong or illegal that ruling is. (See my up and coming blog, blind man Bluff.)

Further making your uphill battle steeper is the fact that, barring any exceptional circumstances, the higher court will not entertain any new evidence you want to tell them. If you didn't tell your story right the first time or if it was misunderstood (or even corrupted), you don't get a second chance to present evidence unless you can get a "de novo" trial. (A new trial.) And even then, they'll try to send you back to the same (bad) judge.

I don't know if it's laziness on the part of the higher courts, unwillingness to rock the boat, or just a plain lack of Godlessness / Justice. (All the above?) But that's how it is.

This is not like the private sector, where, when you have a problem, you can go to a Supervisor, tell your story and get some satisfaction. No one can get fired in government, so there's no accountability, no incentive to make things right.

Further, there's a lot of confusion among the general public about the purpose of complaints of judicial misconduct. Even though the Commission on Judicial Conduct tries it make it clear in its rules, it appears many complainants don't read the rules or don't think the rules will apply to their egregious case.

The Commission does not have the power to change a judge's rulings, even if everyone on the Commission sees that your judge goofed at law.

In theory, the Commission only cares about clear "misconduct." But isn't making bad law part and parcel of "misconduct?" How does the Commission so easily separate a judge's actions from the judge?

But even in a blatant case of misconduct, like, say, if the judge took a bribe to rule against you, even then the Commission will probably disappoint you. (The federal court certainly will when you try to pursue a §1983 civil right lawsuit against him.)

For example, when I asked a staffer if the Commission would report bribery to law enforcement, she told me "It depends."

WRONG ANSWER. It should always be "Yes." But that's the Commission for you.

It's a screwed up system we have here. It's the Legislature, in its Check & Balance role, who should be overseeing judges. Not judges.

Unfortunately, the fox is watching the hen house (judges judging judges). That's how they like it and that's how it is in our Arizona Constitution since the mid-60's. I'm sorry to say that, given the inertia and vested interests, it's unlikely we will ever get a Constitutional Amendment to change this incestuous Good Ole Boys Club. As I've opined before, this will lead to anarchy soon as citizens blow off ridiculous rulings by judges and a lack of resources prevent law enforcement from reacting.

And you can see from my previous post that I've tried mightily to get justice for former judge hinson's criminal acts, without success.

So again, "No," I don't believe there's anything you can do against former judge hinson. We'll just have to leave his final judgment in God's hands.

Unless the former judge repents in this life, you can be sure there will be Justice for him in the next. For all eternity.