Worthy of Contempt: Ohio Judge Tim Grendell Abuses His Office To Suppress Criticism

Somebody mean bruised Tim Grendell's feels.

They didn't do it directly. Nobody marched up to Grendell and said "you're a petty, totalitarian thug" to his face. Nobody left a hurtful comment on his LiveJournal.

No, somebody said mean things about Tim Grendell in a private conversation with another person, a third party.

Tim Grendell caught wind of it. Now, generally, when people find out that someone is trash-talking them, they have a few options: they can rub dirt on it and walk it off like a goddamn grown-up, they can engage in debate, high or low, with their critic, or they can even sue the critic privately for some sort of redress of buttchafe.

But Tim Grendell isn't people. He's a judge. Specifically, he's a judge on the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas Probate and Juvenile Division in Ohio.

That gives Tim Grendell power — and he's not afraid to abuse it.

The mean person in this story is Nancy McArthur, the Geauga County Republican Party Chairwoman. She's not a party in any case before Judge Grendell. She's not a lawyer in any case before Judge Grendell. She's not a witness in any case before him, or a juror. She's just a citizen who criticized him in a private communication.

Apparently one Robin West, a family member of a juvenile court litigant, was unhappy with Judge Grendell's rulings. Ms. West reached out to Ms. McArthur for help. Ms. McArthur did not oblige. However, according to Ms. West, Ms. McArthur had some unflattering words about Judge Grendell. Here is how Ms. West put it in an email that eventually fell into Judge Grendell's hands:

I am sorry I filed that petition. It is one of the WORST mistakes I have ever made in my life. I had no idea what [sic] flake Judge Grendell is. Confidentially, I talked with the chairman of the Geauga County Republican Party and she told me that Kasich appointed him [Grendell] to replace Henry in order to get him out of Columbus. She said her opinion of him and that of others in his own party is that he is [sic] narcissist and mentally ill. Also, that he is a chameleon who takes revenge on people who disagree with him. I can forward you the emails because she put it in writing.

Somehow, that email fell into Judge Grendell's hands. Outraged by the suggestion that he is narcissistic and takes revenge on people who disagree with him, Judge Grendell immediately issued a order to show cause to Ms. McArthur, requiring her to appear promptly, disclose all of her written communications with West, and show why she should not be held in contempt and perhaps jailed:

Rather than laughing off McArthur’s comments and hitting the delete button, Grendell did the unthinkable. On Dec. 31, he issued a subpoena to McArthur, a woman who had nothing whatsoever to do with the case before him, demanding she bring to his courtroom on Jan. 8 “any and all emails and other communications to and from yourself" and the woman who'd sent the email. (We are not naming this woman since it appears that a juvenile relation of hers has a case before Grendell.)

Grendell’s reason for dragging McArthur into his courtroom, as stated in his “Summons and Order,” was to require her “to show cause why (she) should not be held in Contempt of Court for making vile, contemptuous, slanderous, and insulting language directed at the Judge which reflects negatively on the integrity of the Court and impedes the Court in the administration of justice and protection of the juvenile.”

The judge also reminded McArthur that a finding of contempt of court against her could result in “incarceration.”

Ms. McArthur lawyered up, as anyone would. Her lawyer, who had a conflicting hearing the day Judge Grendell had set, requested a brief continuance. Judge Grendell petulantly refused. Fortunately the Court of Appeals saw it differently, and granted a temporary stay of the proceedings in response to Ms. McArthur's writ.

When a party seeks a writ from the Court of Appeals to interfere with an ongoing case in the trial court, the writ is typically styled "[Litigant] v. Superior Court." When, as here, the writ challenges a judge's power on a matter in which no opposing party has a dog in the fight, county counsel or the District Attorney or the Attorney General will represent the judge's position. Here, the County Counsel took a pass, citing unspecified ethical restrictions. Good move. Grendell has his own private lawyer, a lickspittle quisling named Abraham Cantor.

Is Judge Grendell contrite, now that the press has caught wind of this? He is not. He is full of bluster and defiance:

“Nancy McArthur improperly interfered with an ongoing (juvenile court matter) by making factually false statements about the competency and legal proficiency of the juvenile court judge … to a known party in that case,” Grendell told the Maple Leaf on Monday.

“Ms. McArthur’s conduct jeopardizes sensitive judicial proceedings that involve protection of a (juvenile),” the judge said.

Grendell said he would not discuss juvenile cases in the media.

“However, the court also will not allow Nancy McArthur or anyone else with a personal political agenda to jeopardize child safety in Geauga County by undermining the credibility and integrity of the juvenile court and the court’s ability to administer justice and protect children in pending … cases,” he added.

But Judge Grendell's position is simply unsupportable. He's using the language often employed to justify a court's broad contempt power. But he's utterly ignorant of, or indifferent to, First Amendment precedent limiting that power. For more than 70 years, the Supreme Court has flatly rejected the proposition that judges have some inherent power to punish speech without First Amendment constraints. Instead, the Court has repeatedly required contempt actions against third parties to be justified under the same standards — like the Brandenburg clear-and-present-danger test — as any citizen speech. In a 1941 case striking down contempt sanctions against a newspaper, the Court held:

History affords no support for the contention that the criteria applicable under the Constitution to other types of utterances are not applicable, in contempt proceedings, to out-of-court publications pertaining to a pending case.
. . .
The substantive evil here sought to be averted has been variously described below. It appears to be double: disrespect for the judiciary; and disorderly and unfair administration of justice. The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste,16 on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignify of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect. Bridges v. State of Cal., 314 U.S. 252, 268, 270-71 (1941).

Most subsequent cases applying the First Amendment to sanctions for court-proceeding-related speech have involved lawyers, whose conduct in connection with courts where they practice is more subject to restriction. But even in those cases — even where a lawyer in a case before a judge is speaking in public about that case — the Supreme Court has only approved the most narrow and substantially-justified restrictions. For instance, in 1991, a bare majority of the Court found that a Nevada bar rule limiting attorney comment on pending matters could potentially pass muster because it was so limited:

The restraint on speech is narrowly tailored to achieve those objectives. The regulation of attorneys' speech is limited-it applies only to speech that is substantially likely to have a materially prejudicial effect; it is neutral as to points of view, applying equally to all attorneys participating in a pending case; and it merely postpones the attorneys' comments until after the trial. While supported by the substantial state interest in preventing prejudice to an adjudicative proceeding by those who have a duty to protect its integrity, the Rule is limited on its face to preventing only speech having a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing that proceeding. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1076 (1991)

Moreover, courts have applied familiar free speech doctrines — like the distinction between statements of fact and statements of opinion — to cases about criticism of judges. For instance, quoth the Ninth Circuit:

It follows that statements impugning the integrity of a judge may not be punished unless they are capable of being proved true or false; statements of opinion are protected by the First Amendment unless they “imply a false assertion of fact.” See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19, 110 S.Ct. 2695, 2706, 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); Lewis v. Time, Inc., 710 F.2d 549, 555 (9th Cir.1983); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 (1977) (statement of opinion actionable “only if it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion”). Even statements that at first blush appear to be factual are protected by the First Amendment if they cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about their target. See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50, 108 S.Ct. 876, 879, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988). Thus, statements of “rhetorical hyperbole” aren't sanctionable, nor are statements that use language in a “loose, figurative sense.” See National Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 284, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 2781, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974) (use of word “traitor” could not be construed as representation of fact); Greenbelt Coop. Publishing Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 1541, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970) (use of word “blackmail” could not have been interpreted as charging plaintiff with commission of criminal offense). Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1438 (9th Cir. 1995)

Under these standards, Judge Grendell's actions are shockingly lawless. Ms. McArthur is not a party or attorney or witness before the judge, and therefore his power to limit speech is at its very weakest. Ms. McArthur spoke privately to a third party, and not in public. There is no chance that the judge can establish that her criticism had the requisite "substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing" a proceeding before him. If he could, that would mean any vigorous criticism of a judge — from a lowly commissioner to Supreme Court Justice — could get the speaker hailed into court. Moreover, Ms. McArthur's comments — as related by West — are explicitly statements of opinion and clearly rhetorical hyberbole: "She said her opinion of him and that of others in his own party is that he is [sic] narcissist and mentally ill. Also, that he is a chameleon who takes revenge on people who disagree with him." Even if the last sentence were not opinion, Judge Grendell's actions show that it is true.

Judge Grendell is engaged in a grotesque abuse of his judicial power — the very worst sort of black robe fever — to vent his childish pique. This sort of thing happens more often than you might think. It's not unique to judges. It's the way too many humans act when given power. Judges are only unique in the extent of their privileges and their tendency to evade consequences for bad behavior.

Let's hope that the Ohio Court of Appeals puts Judge Grendell in his place. Let's hope that this incident permanently impairs his reputation and prevents further advancement. Let's remember: we can't put all of our trust in judges to protect us from the abuses of other judges. That's a paper shield. To protect our right to free speech, we must use it vigorously when the rights of others are threatened. We must ensure that misconduct and abuse of power like this renders public life intolerable for people like Judge Grendell.

Dear Judge Grendell: I will accept service of any Order to Show Cause you may wish to issue to me.

Thanks to multiple tipsters for leads on this story.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

Comments

  1. Ryan says

    a lickspittle quisling named Abraham Cantor.

    You yourself once said that everyone has the right to an attorney.

  2. says

    Yes. Even the State.

    But it's worthy of comment when an attorney represents the State to promote tyranny. Grendell isn't represented as an individual litigant. He's represented as a judge.

  3. says

    Indeed, why “allow Nancy McArthur … to jeopardize child safety in Geauga County by undermining the credibility and integrity of the juvenile court” when the Court can jolly well do so itself?

  4. En Passant says

    Under these standards, Judge Grendell's actions are shockingly lawless. Ms. McArthur is not a party or attorney or witness before the judge, and therefore his power to limit speech is at its very weakest. Ms. McArthur spoke privately to a third party, and not in public. There is no chance that the judge can establish that her criticism had the requisite "substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing" a proceeding before him.

    Judge Grendell's legal theory in TL;DR form: You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

  5. John Dwyer says

    Well, so much for entrusting the judiciary with sentencing decisions….

    And "lickspittle quisling"…. Nice. I rarely need to look up two words in a row.

  6. Sami says

    What a worthless little tit… who apparently hasn't heard of the Streisand effect. He's taken a private discussion between a couple of people that wouldn't have spread much further, if at all, and now he's making the assertions about him a matter of public record while proving them true and ensuring that they will come to the attention of many, many people. What a fool.

  7. albert says

    @Ken

    A "lickspittle quisling", 'a fawning subordinate' who 'conspires with the enemy'.

    I don't mind looking up two words in a row, especially if I can reuse them :)

    Now I saved everyone else (except John D) the trouble.

    Looking forward to the Asshat of the Year Awards,

    Carry on, mon ami…

  8. That Anonymous Coward says

    Anyone still holding out against my notion that giving people power causes a form of brain damage?

    If a private conversation, and one is REALLY curious how he obtained it, can send him this far off the deep end derailing him from doing his actual job as he seeks to fulfill a vendetta against someone who doesn't think highly of him he is unfit for the job to sit in judgement of others. His own judgement is so faulty that he decided abusing his position, and the power granted to him, to extract a pound of flesh for butthurt.

    He gets to sit and make decisions that can shape a person life & future, and he has shown that we need a much better system for removing those unfit to do so.

  9. Greg says

    But…the children! You must think of the children!

    Seriously, that is his justification. The satire pretty much writes itself.

  10. Revenge Porn victim says

    [Dear RPV: I published your prior comment on the same subject in a thread to which it was arguably related. However, I'm not going to let you spam all over all the threads. Conduct yourself appropriately or be banned. –K]

  11. says

    Hmmm I wonder if the judge is worried about getting an arm ripped off and subsequently crawling back to his cave to die. I may have my Grendels confused after all Beowulf ripped off Grendel's arm, where as Judge Grendell seems bent on destroying himself without any help required by any mythical heroes.

  12. J.R. says

    Hmmh wasn't Grendell the evil beast in Beowulf?

    Be that as it may, perhaps His Honor is not a vengeful narcissist … mayhap he's a pompous ass, instead., or to quote Bugs Bunny (again) "What a maroon!"

  13. C. S. P. Schofield says

    "His wife is one of the Judges for the Court of Appeals."

    So, presumably, she already knows what a buffoon he is……

  14. says

    To clear up a few things for people asking questions…

    J Grendell got the emails through coercion. An attorney that happened to be appearing in front of him on an unrelated matter knew the woman that received the email from Nancy McArthur. The Judge then demanded the emails once her heard of them or threatened to put a second party that had copies in jail if she didn't turn them over to the courts. Its slightly more complicated than that, but you get the gist. Someone said something nasty about him that by all accounts out of Columbus are actually true and he got his nose out of joint. He then threatened to hold a person in contempt and jail them if they didn't turn over PRIVATE emails.

    Secondly, J Grendell as of today has sent a letter to the editors of the Plain Dealer here in Cleveland regarding a recent article run by Mr. Larkin. In the letter he basically takes the editors to takes, but its his last paragraph that has me wondering.

    "Confidentiality limitations prevent a discussion of any other facts, but suffice to say, the Plain Dealer's editorial board and Brent Larkin are mistaken as to both the facts and the law. This is particularly disappointing because the Court supplied the newspaper with the correct information before it published the editorial."

    That is directly from his letter word for word. Now correct me if I'm wrong but in sentence one he states there are confidentiality issues and then follows up in sentence two by saying he has disclosed the "Correct information" to the newspaper. Sounds an awful lot like the Judge just violated his own rule of "Confidentiality" to suit his own needs.

    The Appellant Court judge he is trying to get thrown off the case is a political rival for him and his wife. The move to make Colleen O'Toole look bad is pure dirty politics and plays into Grendell's desire to run for the Ohio Supreme himself. That or his wife's. Add to that the Affidavit filed to remove O'Toole lists the main reason for removing her as a hearsay conversation had with none other than Grendell's own wife!

    And seriously folks, I haven't even touched on what he's done and how far he has over reached his authority with the parks here in Geauga County. MEGALOMANIAC is the only fitting word here. Trust me….

  15. NickM says

    Unless they can order him locked in a cell, the Ohio Court of Appeals cannot put him in his place.

  16. VPJ says

    …the court also will not allow Nancy McArthur or anyone else with a personal political agenda to jeopardize child safety in Geauga County…

    In other words–all together now: For the children!

  17. Stevie says

    It always cheers me up when you put the boot into judges behaving disgracefully. Long may it continue…

  18. Sami says

    So… given how much he has disgraced and degraded the image and reputation of the judiciary, could another or higher court haul *him* in on contempt?

  19. Not the IT Dept. says

    Why a chameleon? Are they known to be particularly vengeful? Sorry, but I live with a naturalist and the comment jumped out at me.

  20. TXDave says

    Just when I think my view of humanity is overly cynical, we get another story like this proving I'm too much of an optimist.

  21. Shelley says

    Many, many thanks for picking up on this story. Geauga County residents, and especially local lawyers, are afraid to say anything negative about Grendell.

  22. Matthew Smith says

    The chameleon, as metaphor, is used to depict one who changes his colors, i.e., sneaky, untrustworthy, or treacherous.

  23. nichole price says

    Ryan, why not just post the text?

    Ohio
    Ohio judges may be removed in one of three ways:
    • Complaints alleging judicial misconduct may be filed with the disciplinary counsel or with a certified grievance committee of the board of commissioners on grievances and discipline, both of which have the authority to investigate and file formal complaints with the board. If two thirds of the members of the board believe there is substantial credible evidence to support the complaint, the supreme court appoints a commission of five judges to determine whether retirement, removal, or suspension is warranted. The commission's decision may be appealed to the supreme court.

    • Judges may be removed by a concurrent resolution of two thirds of the members of both houses of the general assembly.

    • Judges may be impeached by a majority vote of the house of representatives and convicted by a two-thirds vote of the senate.

  24. Pat says

    This is certainly not the first time Tim Grendell engaged in patently frivolous actions:

    Respondents request sanctions against Timothy J. Grendell and Gerald W.
    Phillips, both relators and attorneys for the remaining relators. Under S.Ct.Prac.R.
    XIV(5), “[i]f the Supreme Court, on motion or on its own initiative, determines
    that an appeal or other action is frivolous or is prosecuted for delay, harassment, or
    any other improper purpose, it may impose, on the person who signed the appeal or
    action, a represented party, or both, appropriate sanctions, including an award to
    the opposing party of reasonable expenses, reasonable attorney fees, costs or
    double costs, or any other sanction considered just.” (Emphasis added.)

    Sanctions are warranted here. For the reasons previously discussed, this
    action is frivolous insofar as relators’ counsel relied on the General Assembly’s
    joint rules because the action is not reasonably well grounded in fact or warranted
    by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or
    reversal of existing law. S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5). Further, as respondents contend,
    harassment is the only apparent rationalefor relators’ attorneys to erroneously
    allege that Thomas’s actions constitute the criminal offenses of retaliation,
    intimidation, and coercion. Finally, these same attorneys recently filed a meritless
    extraordinary writ case in which we emphasizedtheir “unjustified delaying tactics”
    and “acts of gamesmanship.” State ex rel. The Ryant Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of
    Elections (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 107, 113, 712 N.E.2d 696, 701.

    SER Grendell v. Davidson, 1999-Ohio-1930

    Long time ago to be sure, but how many judges do you know that were sanctioned for frivolous conduct while in private practice?

    [For pointing this out, I'm sure I'll get my own contempt cite. Ken, maybe we can split a cab to the courthouse?]

  25. derailleur says

    Dear Judge Grendell: I will accept service of any Order to Show Cause you may wish to issue to me.

    While I know Ken has much better things to do with his time, I do find myself fervently hoping that Judge Grendell takes Ken up on his offer.

  26. barry says

    With the judiciary being one of the branches of government, along with criticizing politicians or the executive, insulting a judge would be one of the last speech freedoms to go. Even in democracies with more limited speech rights, the freedom to criticize the government is still protected.

    Also, if this was an illegally obtained email he was complaining about, does that count as extortion if the privacy of emails has value? or at least 'coercion' if it was a bad-faith threat to cause official action to be taken?

  27. Dragoness Eclectic says

    I, too, was puzzled over the chameleon insult, because in my experience, chameleons just sit on branches, changes colors to match the background and snap up bugs. Nothing particularly vindictive about them, unless you are trying to sleep in on a nice summer morning when the males have decided they want to get laid and start barking.

    So, does Judge Grendell eat bugs, or what?

  28. Shelley says

    I think the reason he was referred to as a chameleon is that he can be very charming and personable, but he'll change his color to snap up those who bug him.

  29. whheydt says

    Wow… I guess it just goes to show how long it's been since WW2 that people have forgotten (or never heard of) Vidkun Quisling. From what I've read, the Germans didn't think much of him, either.

  30. albert says

    @That Anonymous Coward
    "…Anyone still holding out against my notion that giving people power causes a form of brain damage?…"

    No, I don't think it causes a form of brain damage. I think it activates certain genes, which we all have. We are endowed with certain alien-able rights, including the right to be tools and douchebags. We are products of our Creator (or creators), and we are just like him (it, her, them).

    So, 'damage' isn't accurate. Perhaps 'chemical imbalance' might be better. Someday, scientists may name a syndrome for this imbalance, and develop drugs to 'cure' it.

    I'm open for suggestions of a name, and better yet, a name for the drug. Imagine if all judges with xxxxx syndrome had to take a little pill every morning….

  31. William Crosby says

    Judge Grendell is about as wacky as they come and they get pretty wacky in NE Ohio (see Judge Stokes currently on trial before a disciplinary panel of the Ohio Supreme Court), but you're wrong about Abe Cantor. Abe Cantor is a brilliant legal mind and one of the finest attorneys I've ever encountered. Ethically, he is one of the most honorable men I ever met. I think you embarrassed yourself with the undeserved name-calling. You owe him an apology.

  32. En Passant says

    Dragoness Eclectic February 26, 2015 at 9:09 am:

    … Nothing particularly vindictive about them, unless you are trying to sleep in on a nice summer morning when the males have decided they want to get laid and start barking.

    So, does Judge Grendell eat bugs, or what?

    Maybe his barking is more annoying and dangerous than the common barking moonbat's.

  33. albert says

    @Great Gray Owl
    For those who don't do fb, a search of 'judge grendell' ohio' will turn up a shipload of asshatia.
    .
    @derailleur – "…I do find myself fervently hoping that Judge Grendell takes Ken up on his offer….'

    I agree. Man, I would buy the popcorn AND the beer for that one….and I don't even drink!

    IF he's smart, he'll let Kens offer pass….. wait, what am I saying?

  34. The Ghost of Vidkun Quisling says

    I must ask that you remove my name from any association with that perhaps person Abraham Cantor, Esq.. I got control (well mostly) of an entire country for my toadying to Hitler while a judge on the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas Probate and Juvenile Division in Ohio has little to offer Cantor beyond his fees, which Cantor probably has to discount. Associating my bad name with this execrable sycophant is like saying Judas sold out Jesus for a half-eaten ham sandwich, which Judas couldn't even eat as he was Jewish.

  35. Kratoklastes says

    That Anonymous Coward disait: Anyone still holding out against my notion that giving people power causes a form of brain damage?

    Yes, me. The great misdirection of Acton's aphorism ("power tends to corrupt, and absolute power to corrupt absolutely") is the unstated premise that those who seek positions of power are not corrupt to begin with.

    So rather than saying "giving people power causes a form of brain damage", I would assert that creating positions of power attracts people with a specific form of personality damage… namely, sociopathic megalomaniacs.

  36. Kratoklastes says

    I have read – somewhere on the internet, some time ago – that in a number of jurisdictions in the US, it is not necessary tor a judge to have formal qualifications in law, nor experience as an advocate.

    That struck me as possibly some journalist's misunderstanding of the situation – or perhaps an historical artifact that was no longer the case.

    In any case, in common law jurisdictions (like mine – Australia) it's reasonably widely held by senior practitioners (in private, when there are no judges around) that judges, on the whole, are drawn from that pool of advocates who get to their mid-50s and realise that their practice has not generated sufficient savings to enable them to enjoy a decent retirement. (Judicial salaries are about a fifth of what a genuinely-good barrister will earn, but they retire on 100% of final-year salary after 10 or 15 years on the bench). plus, they go from being a known underperformer at the Bar, to all the hagiography and status that goes with being Black Robe.

    Autrement dit: the Bench is, first and foremost, a pension plan for second-rate barristers. From time to time there is an exception that proves the rule (e.g., my old mucker Croucher J of the Victorian Supreme Court – who was an exceptional student, an exceptional advocate, and is probably a decent judge), but by and large their competence is entirely consistent with the Peter Principle. (And Croucher went to a government school, was a logging truck driver, and did Law as a mature age student… the speeches at his investiture were cringe-making for the Chief Justice's trip[ping over herself to point out how much of a 'normal fellow" Michael is).

    So seriously – fuck judges. If their opinions were worth shit, they could deliver them wearing tracksuit pants and a t-shirt rather than quasi-ecclesiastic costumes.

  37. En Passant says

    Kratoklastes wrote February 28, 2015 at 8:17 pm:

    So rather than saying "giving people power causes a form of brain damage", I would assert that creating positions of power attracts people with a specific form of personality damage… namely, sociopathic megalomaniacs.

    Both propositions can be true simutaneously, and I think both are true.

  38. John C. Randolph says

    So, how do the citizens of Ohio go about getting this infantile fascist bounced off the taxpayers' teat?

    -jcr

  39. Rob Allen says

    Unfortunately we can't. The jurisdiction that he is in (Geauga County) is not organized to allow for a recall vote. He was just re-elected in November and has a 6 year term.

    That does not mean that he can not be removed by the Ohio Supreme Court, but to this point they are wisely remaining quiet on the topic. I believe because they do not want to have any further issues come up when the topic gets to them.

  40. Rob Allen says

    Yes, but the voters must pass the measure. By "Organized" I mean Ohio municipalities must organize under a "Limited Home Rule" Charter and then they must vote on and approve the use of recall elections within that charter. So in order to conduct a recall election, we would have to vote and amend our founding charter.

  41. MDC says

    Remove absolute immunity from every single player in the criminal justice system and make qualified immunity exactly what it's supposed to be – immunity from consequences caused by actions that are honestly and obviously part of one's job. Since this isn't obviously (and obviously isn't) part of Judge Grendell's job he should be liable both in criminal court and civil court.

    Problem solved in one day.

    The real problem is that people like him have no skin in the game. He can act like a complete jackass – to the point of criminality – and it won't harm him in any way. He still has his job, car, home, etc. When those things start getting taken away from people like him then he and everybody like him will take notice.

    The only question is this: do we have any legislators who are willing to step up to the plate and define legally what "qualified immunity" is while throwing "absolute immunity" into the trash?

  42. says

    oh absolutely MDC! I have said that for years! End immunity! It will only happen when people start e-mailing their state legislators demanding it, because that is who has to change the laws. For the most part.

    We need to start a revolution to bring the judiciaries out of the dark ages. We should pass laws that give attorneys back their constitutional rights of free speech, first of all. And, we need to change them from officers of the court to advocates before the court. No more lawyers club with an almost unaccountable membership!
    I think it would make a HUGE change in our nation. Many of them forget that non-lawyers have not given up our God-given rights.
    And, no more secret disciplinary processes! Transparency in that would do us a world of good. The courts are a remnant of monarchical societies.

    It blows my mind when lies are pronounced to be facts. Many lies stand simply because people do not have money to fight beyond the trial court. Or, they have greedy lawyers who only do the least work they can to make the most from their 250.00 per hour fee. Justice. Where is the justice in that? A fundamental shift in the courts toward liberty would change our nation for the good.

  43. bluedanube says

    ….Or at a piecemeal hourly rate? Surely there is someone who could go against him effectively reading this blog. Because it is more about him than going against the other party in his court. Just so you know. I can write but I can't perform in a court. I love to write. But no, I am not good in live court. Help!

  44. Amber says

    If a judge hasn't had at least one person think that they (the judge) is an idiot, full of asinine stupidity and malice, said judge has not had to rule on any decisions in which the participants really care about the outcome, regardless of any facts about the case.

  45. bluedanube says

    @Amber, true enough, but I wonder how many judges would issue a show cause for a person filing formal grievances to official government bodies? It actually happened. I was an idiot for going back before him after he did that. An idiot. And our attorney should not have recommended it. It was just plain stupid.

    When a juvenile system works in a way to harm a child, there is a real problem worth filing grievances over.

Trackbacks