NJ Judge Apologizes for Rant Against Pro Se Litigant

Posted Sep 4, 2010 7:02 AM CDT

By Mark Hansen

A New Jersey judge accused of launching into a tirade against a pro se litigant in court has apologized for his remarks, which he says may have been in artful but were well-intentioned. Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Max Baker, in his response to a disciplinary complaint against him, says he was only trying to help the litigant, a woman seeking a restraining order against her husband, understand that denying her husband access to their child would ultimately prove harmful to the child in the long run. "While the message should have been impartedmore cordially and patiently, it was a heartfelt message with the hope of doing justice to the family, not to demean either of the litigants," Baker told the state's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct in a written statement Aug. 26, according to a report Thursday in the New Jersey Law Journal. The committee has accused Baker of violating judicial canons that require judges to be patient and courteous with litigants, maintain high standards of conduct and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Baker, then the county's presiding family court judge, is accused of going off on a rant against litigant Dana Pilla during a hearing last December when she expressed concern about the temporary visitation schedule he had set for her husband, Michael, with the couple's minor child. The committee says Baker became irate, screamed at Pilla, accused her of being a bad parent and threatened to jail her if she disobeyed his order concerning visitation. Baker denies becoming irate or screaming at Pilla, but acknowledges that his words "could have been so interpreted."


I.F.F.O.C. President has discovered that these judges hold pro se litigants (acting as you own attorney) to a heightened standard. They want to control the outcome of the case by assigning attorneys to your case in domestic actions. When you act as a pro se litigant they have a tendency to act out or rule in the attorney’s favor criticizing your legal work or arguments, even though you may be correct. This is to divert our attention to either hire another counsel or maybe think that your work is insufficient to act as a pro se litigant.

Statics are now showing that more are now acting as a pro se litigant in a court of law in the United States. This is because people do not trust attorneys, and they end up doing the research and find out that either their attorney is incompetent to be a trial or domestic attorney, or that they decide that if I am doing all the research, I should be able to handle my own case, since my attorney is not doing his basic research or homework for my case. This is prejudicial to pro se litigants, and shows us that there is no equality in our halls of justice, only a premonition that you will get equality and justice in our courts.