judge jokes, jokes about judges, lawsuits and judges, judges

Is justice truly for sale in the courtrooms of the United States? While that question could be argued for hours on end, there can be little debate that America’s justice system is wrought with prejudice, corruption and avarice. Sometimes it seems that getting a fair shake in court these days depends a great deal on who’s representing you and what kind of strings your lawyer can pull. Who the lawyer knows seems to mean a lot more than what he or she knows anymore.

Today, the lawyer with the right connections always holds the upper hand over the lawyer who doesn’t. Always. From top to bottom and everywhere in between, the legal community is a tight nit conglomeration of cliques and inner circles. If your lawyer is not part of the "in" crowd - the good old boy network where glad handing and behind the scenes dealing rule the day - you may find yourself in a whole heap of trouble if and when you land in court.

A woman was being questioned in a court trial involving slander.

"Please repeat the slanderous statements you heard, exactly as you heard them," instructed the lawyer.

The witness hesitated. "But they are unfit for any respectable person to hear," she protested.

"Then," said the attorney, "just whisper them to the judge."

Lawyers who are friendly with the judges in the courts in which they practice hold a huge ace in the hole. After all, when it’s all said and done, judges are the final arbiters in all lawsuits. Judges run the show and can generally dictate the path of any given case brought before their court. Judges have a lot more latitude than most people think when it comes to presiding over a case and a judge can make or break a case if he or she so chooses.

Throughout the legal proceedings, from the pre-trial motions and hearings right through the trial testimony, judges make rulings on a number of issues that can directly influence the direction of any lawsuit and ultimately the outcome of the suit as well.

Even in jury trials, judges can still exert an enormous amount of power on how the cases will be decided in the end. A crackerjack crook of a judge can swing a case in any direction he or she wants by selectively admitting or omitting evidence and testimony, randomly overruling or sustaining objections and indiscriminately ruling on assorted legal aspects of the case.

While the lawyers may protest, the judge is the final decision maker. If anyone, be it the lawyers or their clientele, disagrees with the verdict or decision rendered, their only recourse is to take the case to an appeals court - an expensive and time consuming route.

Two duck hunters ran into one another early one morning. One of them noticed that the other’s dog was just sitting there, with absolutely no interest in retrieving any of the fowl his master had downed.

"What ‘s wrong with your dog?" the first hunter asked. "The last time I saw you two he was one of the best bird dogs I had ever seen!"

"Well," the other hunter replied, "His name is Lawyer. He used to run all over creation, working hard to get the job done. Then one day someone made the mistake of calling him Judge. Now all he does is sit on his ass and bark."

A judge, regardless of whether he or she has been elected or appointed to the seat, is sworn to uphold the law. In theory, a judge must be evenhanded at all times, overseeing the court with impartiality. But what about a judge’s personal penchants and predilections?

Don’t think for a moment that judges don’t come to work with their own set of personal preferences and biases. While many judges are able to put their personal proclivities on the back burner and decide cases based solely on the facts, there are many who do not or will not.

Many a lawyer has rued the day he or she got on the bad side of a judge. A judge with a grudge or personal vendetta against a lawyer can make that lawyer’s time in his or her courtroom a living hell hole to be sure. And if this lawyer happens to be the one representing you, you’re screwed. If a judge has it in for you or your lawyer or both, regardless of the merit of your case, chances are very good that you’re going down - and going down hard.

Lawyers who are on the judge’s good side, especially those who have generously forked over money to the judge’s election campaign efforts, on many occasions get the generous benefit of the doubt that tilts the case in their favor. Judicial history is replete with "home cooked" decisions being rendered in favor of cronies and friends. Judges and lawyers getting cozy and working in cahoots is a tradition as old as the legal profession itself.

Suffice it to say that judges play the pivotal role in making sure everyone gets a fair and impartial day in court. But the manner in which America chooses judges at virtually every level is an unqualified prescription for disaster. Judges are either elected or appointed to their positions - and there are numerous pitfalls associated with each avenue. The biggest problem with either system is that the most qualified candidate is not always the one who gets seated.

Many judges are elected in partisan, politically charged races. Since a staggering number of people rarely bother to vote and those who do rarely properly educate themselves about the candidates, most judges (like the majority of elected officials) are picked primarily by name recognition or party preference. And money helps to gain the needed name recognition.

The overriding concern here is how judicial candidates go about raising campaign money. Those running for judgeships get the majority of the loot needed to finance their races from lawyers - that’s right, lawyers pick up most of the campaign tabs for judges. Surprised? You shouldn’t be.

Birds of a feather flock together, especially the foul ones. And the lawyers handing over the cash to the judge’s election efforts are not just any lawyers mind you. While lawyers have a lot of dough to spread around, they’re not likely to donate to a judge unless there’s the highly likely prospect that the same lawyers making the donations will at some point bring cases in front of the very same court. Does anyone see a potential conflict of interest brewing here?

A judge, bored and frustrated by a lawyer's tedious arguments, had made numerous rulings to speed the trial along. The attorney had bristled at the judge's orders, and their tempers grew hot.

Finally, frustrated with another repetition of arguments he had heard many times before, the judge pointed to his ear and said, "Counselor, you should be aware that at this point, what you are saying is just going in one ear and out the other."

"Your honor," replied the lawyer, "That goes without saying. What is there to prevent it?"

Judge for yourself. I’m not suggesting that any judge will routinely rule in favor of the lawyers who helped get him or her elected in the first place, but I’m not suggesting otherwise either - and here’s why.

Money talks and in politics, it talks loud and clear. Candidates, regardless of whether they’re running for a school board position, a state representative seat and yes even a judgeship, need money to finance their campaigns. It’s the nature of the beast.

As a rule, the people giving the money expect something in return for their cash - and that "something" is preferential treatment. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. And don’t try to tell me that this isn’t the case. Come on and grow up. Why else do people contribute to a candidate, especially when they’re forking over some serious cheese, unless the prospect of a quid pro quo exists?

Even if a judge is an impartial and fair arbiter and never, ever let’s the money received from certain lawyers influence his or her decisions being rendered, you can never be for sure.

Let’s say your lawyer didn’t pony up a sizable contribution for the judge in the last election cycle, but the lawyer representing the other party paid the piper a sizable sum. You end up losing the case you believe you should have won. Then you’re left to wonder why you came up on the short end of the stick.

Well maybe the lawyer representing the other side did a better job and fed your lawyer his lunch. Maybe your case wasn’t as good as you originally thought it was. Or maybe, just maybe, the fix was in from the start. How will you ever know for sure?

And last but certainly not least, here are some true life yet goofy stories about judges,

Judge Not for Sale, Despite eBay Listing. A Manhattan housing court judge was not the least bit amused by a recent advertisement on eBay. Evidently, the item up for bid hit a little too close to home. The item for sale with worldwide shipping included was none other than the honorable judge himself.