Judges - wow judge McAuliffe is being extremely hypocritical. and then he wonders why the browns walked out during the trial. they knew they were getting a raw deal and that they were right. Now in reference to judge muirhead: "A terrific judge with a som

Initiate Joined: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 430

I looked up evaluations of Judges McAuliffe and Muirhead at the Robing Room website ( http://www.therobingroom.com ). McAuliffe scored a dismall 2.2 points out of a possible 10 -- one of the lowest scores.

Muirhead got a surprising 8.6, with this comment: A terrific judge with a sometimes inappropriate temperment.

Here's a bio from Findlaw:

Hon. James R. Muirhead (D.N.H.)
Magistrate Judge

Appointed 1995 by District Judges, United States District Court of New Hampshire

Bar Admissions: New Hampshire, 1966
Education: Cornell Law School, Ithaca, New York, 1966
LL.B., Bachelor of Law

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1963
A.B., Bachelor of Arts

Honors and Awards:
Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers
Fellow, International Society of Barristers

Professional Associations and Memberships:
New Hampshire Legal Assistance, 1973 (President)

Supreme Court Task Force on The Courts, 1989 - 1990 (Member)

New Hampshire Bar Association
Member, Board of Governors, 1971-1974, 1976-1978, 1986-1989

American Bar Association (Member)

Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Member)

Greater Manchester Development Corporation, 1988 - 1994 (Director)

Manchester City Government Review Task Force, 1994 - 1995 (Chairman)

Past Employment Positions:
McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, Partner/Director, 1966 - 1995

Birth Information:
1941, Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, United States of America

Initiate Joined: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 430

Here is an extract from a NH Bar Association publication where Judge McAuliffe instructs lawyers on how to beat pro se (no attorney) litigants.

Quote:

http://www.nhbar.org/publications/archives/display-news-issue.asp?id=1547

Dealing with pro se litigants who test or exceed the bounds of propriety require somewhat different handling, and the judges pleaded with the attorneys in the audience to understand both the difficult role the judges play and the perceptions that are created when they do step in. "Understand our plight," said McAuliffe. "When a self-represented litigant gets 'lawyered' [confronted by technicalities], they get more acerbic."

"The best way is to cooperate with them, let them know that a deadline is coming up, and don't file for default if they are two days late," McAuliffe urged. "Don't make the court step in to preserve their day in court. If they are getting tripped up by all the rules, then I have to become the teacher, and that is never good for you as the lawyer on the other side."

McAuliffe told attorneys to keep in mind that a more effective and enduring way to succeed against the pro se litigant is to win on the merits. "If they file a meritless case, gather your facts and instead of filing a motion to dismiss, file a summary judgment motion," he said.

Here is a summary of one the the Brown' cases before McAuliffe. Notice they were acting pro se:

Quote:

FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT

6/15/05 Brown v. Colantuono, et al.,

05-cv-125-SM, Opinion No. 2005 DNH 093

Plaintiffs brought this suit seeking damages for various common law torts, including trespass and false imprisonment. It appears that plaintiffs are the subject of a federal grand jury investigation and, in connection with that investigation, a search warrant was obtained to search their business. But, because plaintiffs do not recognize the authority of the federal government, they claim that the search was unauthorized and, therefore, amounted to common law trespass. Although plaintiffs’ complaint names three individual employees of the United States Department of Justice, the court concluded that, because plaintiffs seek damages for torts allegedly committed within the scope of the named defendants’ federal employment, the United States was the only proper defendant. The court then concluded that plaintiffs failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required under the FTCA, prior to filing suit. Accordingly, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court dismissed their claims.

11 pages. Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.

**Member** Joined: Jul 02, 2007 Posts: 614

wow judge McAuliffe is being extremely hypocritical. and then he wonders why the browns walked out during the trial. they knew they were getting a raw deal and that they were right.

Now in reference to judge muirhead: "A terrific judge with a sometimes inappropriate temperment." In the case of jason gerhard he hasn't been a teriffic judge by a long shot. can you say "undue bias"? and he has "inappropiate temperment"? are you kidding? he went off on all four guys because they're friends with the browns. his actions are beyond inappropiate.

Initiate Joined: Jun 20, 2007 Posts: 430

Joe Haas, a local activist and frequent contributor to www.newhampshireunderground.com , has filed a criminal charge against District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe. It is based on RSA (Revised Statutes, Annotated) Chapter 638:14.

Quote:

638:14 Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor who, with a purpose to procure the compliance of another with a request made by such person, knowingly sends, mails or delivers to such person a notice or other writing which has no judicial or other sanction, but which in its format or appearance simulates a summons, complaint, court order or process, including, but not limited to, lien, indictment, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order, or an insignia, seal or printed form of a federal, state or local government or an instrumentality thereof, or is otherwise calculated to induce a belief that it does have a judicial or other official sanction.

I think this probably concerns that bogus court order that shut down the Browns' concert on September 15th.