JUDGES ATTITUDES TOWARDS PRO SE LITIGANTS
"Judges rule with a view to the private interest"
Perverted forms of systematic corruptions
Judges "shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding... the right to be heard according to the law" (Canon 3 Sec. B4)
I am sorry for the lost of Judge Conroy, Jr., who was a Judge at the District Court of Maryland. I pray the strength for his wife, family and loved ones as they grieve their loss.
I discovered that the Judge was deceased in the newspaper while no one informed me from the District Court of Maryland that Judge Conroy, Jr., was deceased. For some reason I was waiting for an officer from the courts to inform me but I expect too much integrity from the District Court in Montgomery County.
Now, I understand why the Honorable Judge Wolfe desire to bury my case on the behalf of his private interest.... disregarding justice. Judge Wolfe has his own biases with women, low-income and pro se litigants ( distinct anti-pro se litigant sentiment). The Honorable judge, the administrative judge fails to improve the numbers of outcomes and to improve the access to justice in Montgomery County. Minorities are still the highest in traffic violations with large fines, unsuccessful in criminal and civil cases with negative outcomes against gender, income, race and ethnic litigants in Montgomery County. The traffic court is segregated as the officers (mostly white males) sit on one side of the court while minorities, low-income and white women (black females has the highest stops in Montgomery County) sits on the other side.....very intimidating and segregated environment.
(In 2002, Court of Appeals created an Anti- Bias Commission that studies provided that gender and racial bias have a major negative impact in Maryland Judicial system). The disparity still exists today in 2014. You can assume that hiring minorities could be more damaging because they use their ethnicity to abuse the system against other minorities.
As the court administrator, the court clerks intentionally withhold information from non-lawyers that they routinely give to lawyers. If a lawyer calls to request a particular procedure the clerk with provide answers. However, if a pro se litigant request the same information it becomes suddenly "no answer" or don't provide legal advice or tell misinformation with malicious intent. Even if they have a window for pro se litigants there is no real assistance or even civility. They have an instant attitude snatching papers as if you are bothering them and it's apart of their job to greet the public. Records are munipulated and documents are mailed late intentionally. Ex-parte communication is acceptable. They intentionally do everything to discourage pro se litigants from exercising their rights for justice. Judges have a duty to assure that court officials "refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties" (Canon 3, Sec C2) The latter provision suggests a duty upon judges generally and especially administrative judges, to assure their court staff provide assistance in an impartial manner.
There is no accountability for judges actions as they believes that they are "Above the Law" therefore he can use the judicial platform to suppress the law. The court room shouldn't be a place for situational ethics. Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal: 3d 678 694 " Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.
