“I know him to be an honest, upright person,” Strong said. “I just think this is going to be a dead-end deal. I can’t believe this guy would every put his career or reputation in jeopardy.”…. this is a judge he’s talking about, right?
Judges come right up through that slime bag lawyer population. We all know how much intgrity lawyers have. This story doesn’t surprise me one bit. I’m not real sure who’s getting “rear ended” in this story.
SUEM: I saw a pathetic video clip of the African American “judge” on CNN. He actually cried over the loss of his pants for one whole week. Not only is he an embarassment to his race and the legal system in total, he’s obviously a jerk who has too much time on his hands.
What I find most frightening is that in the year 2007 Amercia has a legal system in which “judges” lack the stones to toss a suit like this out as being frivolous. It doesn’t make any difference if a customer service promise was broken. Loss of use of one pair of pants for one week isn’t worth much. Another case of no common sense.
I’d like to see some other attorney do a pro bono representation of the cleaner and file a counter-suit for harassment, emotional distress, and discrimination against this clown. My preference would be to take him out back for some “counseling”.
I guess I am just naive to believe that people in any profession could be corrupt; from Cops to teachers to doctors to lawyers to insurance professionals. No one profession has a monopoly on greed or corruption. I have to point out that to many outside the insurance industry it would be ironic for insurance professionals to deride lawyers and judges of being corrupt when many of those outside the industry find insurance professionals to be corrupt themselves.
Disclaimer time: I can’t possibly know if any of you are corrupt. The posters in this thread are using their unfounded (unless you can site extensive data to back up any claim that all or most lawyers and judges are corrupt) perceptions to insinuate the excess greed and corruption of judges when many people in this country have a similar perception of insurance professionals. We’re talking perception here. And the perception goes both ways.
when anyone, especially an attorney, has to stand up and say a judge is ‘honest and upright’, there is something wrong. a judge, by definition, has to be beyond reproach. to be anything less is to corrupt the ‘better than most’ legal system we have.
It is very interesting that the Judge received $440000.00 from a carrier or TPA.
Is the be payment be due to dishonesty?
If so, why wouldn’t the claim represenatives turn this over to their fraud division?
As you know, typically a claim payment of this amount requires at least a couple of
levels of claim reviews before settlement.
So, does this mean the claims rep, the claims manager and perhaps another level of claims management folks (as well as the SIU folks)all missed the fraud before paying out such a significant amount of money?..I hope this is not the case as it wouldn’t speak well to our competency.
Welp…I guess it must the claimants fault,
of course along their attorney, that 440K was paid out on a claim that supposedly shouldn’t have been…If this is the case,
shame on those us who handle claims as the
checkbook that these payments are coming from is often times controlled by those of us who handle claims.
Don’t forget that Scooter Libby is a lawyer and a couple of judges vouched for his “character” for his sentencing. Such paragons of virtue…seems like judges take care of their own.
You are so right that it doesn’t make a difference if a customer service promise was broken. If this truly is actionable, then think about all those late night “male enchancement” products going off the market because their claims can’t be backed up, any more than a customer service promise….It’s advertisement, or so I was told; advertisement claims, such as “satisfaction guarantteed”, can’t be held to the same standards as other “speech”.
Yes you are naive and after reading all the posts I “never” noticed anyone stating that “ALL” or even “MOST” judges and lawyers are corrupt. I noticed many mention that some are corrupt but that is to be expected in every line/avenue of business. Watch out for qualifiers such as “all” as it makes you and your post sound ignorant.
Fair enough. All wasn’t mentioned. But what did the first few posts in this thread imply? Did they imply that we can’t use this story to extrapolate this judge’s actions to the rest of the judges in the country? Hmm..no I don’t think they did.
No matter your thoughts if you find the payments to Superior Court Judge Michael Joyce objectionable this is one of the very few times that you can do something about it. Judge Joyce is up for ten year retention in this November’s state-wide elections. This means that if there are more votes cast not to keep him than to keep him then he becomes history, just like Justice Nigro did two years ago when the public voted not to retain him. It follows that everyone who is upset about what he or she reads about Judge Joyce not only should vote against retention but should strongly encourage others to do likewise, as I am doing.
If you think this man is in any way involved in something unethical, you’re out of your mind! I agree with Dan Strong and add that you should most definitely retain him.
In Pennsylvania the only requirements to become a judge, county or appellate, are to be a citizen of Pennsylvania and member of the Pennsylvania Bar. Oh, yes. There is an informal third requirement, that being to have the intelligence to be able to calculate how many tickets you sold to the county or state political dinner.
Apparently you’re not a member of the Pa bar or you would know that’s no easy feat to begin with. There are other qualifications-search the web (if you know how to…doesn’t seem like you’re remotely educated) and you’ll see that the Judges of the Superior Court are very qualified indeed. Jealousy is not a qualification-sorry Dan, you’ll never make Judge!
I quoted from the Pennsylvania Constitution, Section 5, which deals with the election of judges. Having been a member of the Pennsylvania Bar for over 30 years I feel very sure of what I stated. As concerns jealosy, I never wanted to become a judge, notwithstanding judicial positions having been “offerred me” in the past. And in regard to your comments overall, I sincerely consider you a blessing to blogs of this nature because you are obvious one of the vastly overwhelming number of citizens in this country who are both hard-working and honest, and who find it difficult to understand that there are those, especially in prominent positions, who could be otherwise. I was no different than you until five years ago, but if you read more carefully about judicial qualifications in Pennsylvania you will see that there are absolutely none other than the two I referenced earlier. Indeed, the Bar Association might set standards concerning qualification, experience, etc., but they can be and are ignored by the powers that be. About a dozen or so years ago Pennsylvania voters elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court someone who indeed was a citizen of Pennsylvania and a member of the Pennsylvania Bar, and far more importantly, he had a name extremely similar to an extraordinarily qualified Pittsburgh mayor, to whom he was not even related or had any contact. It follows that when people are called naive in regard to the Pennsylvania judicial system they are in fact, instead, uneducated about it, and justifiably consider that in such a noble profession that cream rises to the top; in Pennsylvania, though, when it comes to the judiciary it is frequently the skim milk that the political parties force on us.
I am VERY surprised that you are an attorney and that you engage in such judge-bashing. I can’t imagine who you may have encountered that have skewed your views in such a negative way as I myself am an attorney in the Commonwealth and have had the polar opposite experience with the Judges of the Superior and Supreme Courts, as well as the few trial judges I have encountered. All the Judges ascended from very prominent positions and if you view the writings of the courts, you can see the scholarship and qualifications shining through. It’s unfortunate that you had negative experiences, but hopefully you won’t hold one negative experience against many qualified individuals. I strongly believe the Judges presently serving should be retained and that the citizens should acknowledge and be educated regarding the candidates.
I have to agree with mikejoyce supporter, lawmandan. I know Judge Joyce personally and he is a terrific, ethical, kind, intelligent man. You can not lump everybody in the same category as you have done. Maybe there are some bad ones, but I must say that Judge Joyce is not a part of that. I most definitely will vote to retain him and encourage others to do the same.
I guess we are all a product of our own experiences. The only specific reference that I make in regard to Judge Joyce, and perhaps this is an old-fashioned attitude, but I respectfully suggest that judges should be beyond reproach and set good examples for the community as a whole. In this regard I am disappointed to date that Judge Joyce has not come out with a detailed exonerating statement. I believe the public is so entitled and if he fails to do so I further respectfully suggest a vote against retention in November. A statement to the effect that he will not provide this information to the public pending the Federal investation would not bode well.
I think the truth speaks for itself-what kind of “detailed exhonorating statement” do you need? Do you know Judge Joyce? If you did, you’d know that to this day he suffers from extreme pain based on the car accident in question. Again, I support Mike Joyce completely-he is an honest, ethical individual and the truth will come out. He should most definitely be retained.
Don’t care what you say Dan, I stand by my position. I agree with my supporter-the truth will come out-why should he defendant against not having done anything wrong? I don’t believe you’re an attorney-you don’t sound educated in the law. It’s a crime to pose as one of us, by the way. Good bye
You are an idiot lawmandan. What, you want to be a judge or something? Why is it better to oust somebody already there, so some less-than-qualified loser can get in. I think not!
Many should look alot closer to certain issues that involve judges. Usually, when one story comes out, there is another more interesting one that can be told if we had the ENTIRE picture here.
Do we have any OTHER proof beyond this particular case that Judge Joyce would engage in conduct that could be questionable? The rules of law state a judge can not even GIVE THE APPEAREANCE OF IMPROPRIETY let alone ENGAGE in questionable conduct.
For instance, shady or shotty law practices which can be used against him.
OR even KNOWING something could be questionable and engaging as a judge could be considered treason.
Let’s just say we remove him from this case…can we find any others (cases) that would suggest he is corrupt and or dishonest?
I can certainly say, I don’t NEED to KNOW a man to look at a select few cases and tell you that they were less than stellar, especially when it comes to the Constituion of The United States.
What goes around quite certainly needs to come around and if we look deeper in to his actual work “BOUND BY LAW” and not if we “like him” or “know him”, than we can actually make an informed decision based on FACTS.
Unfortunately,(fortunately is some situations), it is not up to us and we can only hope that Judge Joyce’s ENTIRE record in his own judgement is used as evidence in the deciding factor of his fate as a high court Judge. He has had other’s lives in his hands at many junctures during his tenure as Judge in the Superior Court and hopefully he will be met with the same fairness or unfairness he has passed to other American Citizens in Pennsylvania appeallate process.
As most people may or may not be aware, most people do not even know or even are AWARE of the law being debated in this case, so many debates are scattered with what people “think” and “feel” instead of what they KNOW and are bound by LAW.
This is simply where the Judicial System happens to be. Joyce has presided over cases that dealt with Habeas Corpus, Crime Grading, Ex Post Facto Law etc and what does all that mean???
What is so up with all of you? EVerybody is so twitched. Law mandan, why are you so uppity? As a lawyer you claim to be, you should be used to critique. And you joyce supporter, why not let it rest? There are tons of idiots in the world that want to critique the elite-rise above it. I agree that the judgesshould be a bove reproach-and I believe a lawyer questioning that should be disbarred.
Are you saying that no lawyer at any time should criticize any judge on the basis of honesty and integrity? Are you saying that all judges are in fact honest all the time and deal with every case with total integrity?
Assuming you’re truly a lawyer, yes, I feel it is unethical for you to criticize judges. Lawyers and judges are bound by codes of ethics and I don’t think that you are doing a service to the profession by criticizing those that wear the robes.
Lawmandan is not a lawyer naive nottobe. He can’t be or he wouldn’t be that dumb. You can’t accuse judges of being corrupt..etc… That is an ethical violation and he should be disbarred but that’s not a problem since I don’t think he even qualifies for a ged.
Hey lawman, if you are a lawyer then you have a name and an attorney id, mind giving me that? I can give you my private address if you’d like? I hate to accuse you of being a non-lawyer when in fact you may be an unethical lawyer instead?
You guys are getting too off track and too silly here-I’m out. Glad we exposed Dan for who and what he really is and never will be (attorney!) Go Judge Joyce-I suggest all of you vote for a real man, an ethical man, an outstanding person, lawyer, and judge.
thank you for your intelligent reply to my question. carlaj wrote an unbelievable reply but i saw where it was written at 3:28am so that should tell it all. my god! to have that much adrenalin pumping through ones veins at 3:28am could lead to a stroke. when one does not know all the details one should ask and that is what i did. from your response, mikejoycesupporter, i would conclude that the judge is a good man because he has your support. i hope he will come out ok. we need good judges and the tendency in our country today is to bring down good people. carlaj is a scary individual. her post made absolutely no sense while yours was intelligent, well thought out and articulated. thank you.
I actually am awake at 3:00 am because I happen to work third shift. 1 pm..HARDLY the sign of a professional time of day. As a medical professional most stokes happen between the hours of 12 and 4 pm..puts you right in the center….
Again off topic.
The topic was legal and law and what this all tells you is that no justice will be sought for the misinformed.
As I said before. Do we have ALL the information on the Judge. Mike Joyce Supporter seems to think so.
Are we voting on Dan or not?
Does anyone differ for any reason with fact and or law?
As you said waiting breathlessly, it was over your head.
I know Mike-great guy-definitely retain him. He’s funny, intelligent and a good guy all around. this fbi stuff is bogus-looks like a scorned ex or something. As for this Dan guy, lets get him-what’s his peeve. He must have been a judge wanna be before he became an unethical disbarred lawyer.
You’re one sick pup danno-I think I know who you actually are-stop f ing with us! What’s the word on tihs Barrish guy-is he a criminal besides the law stuff? Can we have him arrested asap? I’d love to turn in that fellow after he’s talking bad stuff on Mike.
Hey y’all what up today? I think we should go grab Danno and take him to get his discipline! I don’ tknow that Mike Joyce guy but I know a girl he banged-Shelly Beeler. She is one manly man. She dsigned that new casino in Erie-she looks like a transgender dude.
From Pittsburgh newspaper and others throughout the state: “A federal grand jury today indicted a state Superior Court judge for bilking two insurance companies out of nearly a half-million dollars, federal prosecutors said.
Michael Thomas Joyce, 58, of Erie, is charged with nine counts of mail fraud and money laundering.
Prosecutors said Joyce made numerous false representations for two insurance claims related to a 2001 car accident. The companies involved were Erie Insurance Group and State Farm Insurance.”
Supreme Court’s removal of judge salvages some integrity for state system – was the name of this complete article.
What US Attiorney has to say about the evidence presented thus far.
“The bodily injury he says he sustained we believe was fraudulent,” U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said in part of the indictment
FACING 120 YEARS FOR THE MAX AND 2.5 MILLION IN FINES??
HE WAS ALSO SUSPENDED BUT RUNNING FOR RETENTION?
ANYONE KNOW HOW THAT WORKS?
EFFECT THE IMAGE OF THE COURT?
I MEAN EVEN IF ONE CHARGE HE IS FOUND GUILTY (Mail fraud) THAT COULD BE 20 YEARS.
I ALSO READ THAT HE allegedly USED LEGAL LETTER HEAD TO WRITE A LETTER TO ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR HIS PERSONAL AFFAIRS REGARDING THIS INSURANCE CASE.
IS THAT IMMORAL AND ILLEGAL TO USE LETTERHEAD FROM YOUR JUDICIAL OFFICE TO WRITE A LETTER AS A JUDGE?
We are all writing here about how we Know the Judge or lack there of. As I mentioned in postings previous, THE RECORD will stand in regards to the Judge and if any LAWS were broken NOT if he is a “fair” or likeable Judge. Is what he did illegal and does it show impropriert?
Here’s Morning Call article reciting notes from Judge Joyce indictment as per US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.
….Judge Joyce routinely presides over Superior Court cases involving insurance, yet, he had the audacity to use his judicial letterhead to press for compensation. ”He clearly presented himself as a judge,” noted U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, ”and it is possible the insurance company considered that in weighing his claim.”
Earlier, Joseph A. Massa Jr., chief counsel fo the state’s Judicial Conduct Board, said Judge Joyce wouldn’t be legally required to step down because the charges didn’t directly relate to his judicial role. The Supreme Court has rectified that foggy thinking. Didn’t Judge Joyce make some of his insurance claims on his Superior Court letterhead?
If convicted, Judge Joyce could be sentenced to 120 years in prison and fined up to $2.25 million. These are felony charges, not misdemeanors.
Suspended Pa. judge pleads not guilty, says he will retire
By The Associated Press
Monday, August 20, 2007
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Suspended Superior Court Judge Michael T. Joyce pleaded not guilty today to federal charges of mail fraud and money laundering, but abandoned his re-election campaign and said he plans to retire when his term expires in January.
The judge ‘pled’ not guilty, it did not say ‘not guilty’. Heck, Ted Bundy pled not quilty at his arraignment. Please go to IJ, 8/21/2007 to the East section and get some truly hilarious updated posting on this judge. YOU might even find it funny(although that may be up for debate.)
Just because a view is unpopular or a prediction hard to hear does not mean its NOT correct……We have to be willing to make the unpopular opinion for the sake of protecting our Laws and Constitution.
As said recently by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to a PA Audience…..
Sandra Day O’Connor weighs in on Pa. judicial elections
By MARK SCOLFORO
The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. – Ben Franklin would probably have “a lot of pithy remarks” about the need for an independent judiciary if he were around these days, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told a meeting of Pennsylvania judges and lawyers Wednesday.
Efforts to strip federal courts of jurisdiction, have judges impeached after unpopular decisions and eliminate the immunity judges and juries enjoy from civil claims based on their rulings have disturbed her and caught her by surprise, she said.
“I thought an activist judge was one who got up and went to work,” O’Connor said to applause at a luncheon organized by the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence.
O’Connor has expressed similar defenses to an independent judiciary in recent months, but her remarks were especially timely in Pennsylvania, where voters for the first time ever ousted a sitting Supreme Court justice in 2005. Voter anger over a large governmental pay raise was credited with Russell M. Nigro’s defeat.
To be effective, judges have to be confident the legislative and executive branches won’t retaliate against them for unpopular decisions, O’Connor said.
One such state Supreme Court ruling last year restored judges’ pay increases even though the Legislature had repealed the controversial 2005 pay raise law under intense public pressure.
The anti-incumbent activist group PACleanSweep, which helped galvanize voters for Nigro’s defeat, is working to defeat all but one of the 67 municipal, county and appeals judges standing for yes-or-no retention votes in November.
“Don’t get carried away by some across-the-board proposition,” O’Connor said near the end of her remarks. “It’s our duty as citizens to know something about what we’re voting on.”
Bar association president Andrew F. Susko said “no attack has been more bold, more sweeping and more misguided” than the PACleanSweep campaign.
“Every person in this room has a stake in making sure that our justice system remains independent, stable and free,” Susko said.
PACleanSweep chairman Russ Diamond said Wednesday he is confident that new judges will be able to fill any vacancies the voters might create.
“Across-the-board ignoring the constitution, I think, is more dangerous,” Diamond said. “If we don’t live under constitutional rule, then I don’t know what to make of our system of government.”
His group has rescinded its throw-’em-out call in one instance , Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin’s retention race. Her campaign provided evidence she repaid her net raise through the end of 2007.
O’Connor became the first female justice in U.S. history when President Reagan nominated her in 1981. Since retiring from the court last year, she has spoken around the country on threats to the independence of the courts and a need to improve what children are taught about the American system of government.
After O’Connor’s speech, state Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille said voters would be making a big mistake by casting blanket votes against any sitting judge. He is expected to become chief justice when Ralph J. Cappy leaves the bench at the end of the year.
“The one risk is you will lose 730 years of judicial experience in one blow,” he said. “Think about that , seven centuries.”
Earlier in the day, O’Connor, a former Arizona state senator and state appellate judge, toured Pennsylvania’s majestic state Capitol with U.S. Circuit Judge Marjorie O. Rendell, the governor’s wife.
“You have a beautiful Capitol,” she told the luncheon crowd. “Come see ours in Arizona and you won’t be so impressed.”
,,,
Justice for Sale
By SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR
November 15, 2007; Page A25
Voters generally don’t express much interest in the election of judges. This year, as in years past, voter turnout in elections for judges was very low. But judicial elections, which occur in some form in 39 states, are receiving growing attention from those who seek to influence them. In fact, motivated interest groups are pouring money into judicial elections in record amounts. Whether or not they succeed in their attempts to sway the voters, these efforts threaten the integrity of judicial selection and compromise public perception of judicial decisions.
The final four candidates running for open seats on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania raised more than $5.4 million combined in 2007, shattering fund-raising records in Pennsylvania judicial elections. Since 2006, high court campaigns in Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon and Washington also set fund-raising records. Since 2004, nine other states broke records for high court election spending.
Most of this money comes from special interest groups who believe that their contributions can help elect judges likely to rule in a manner favorable to their causes. As interest-group spending rises, public confidence in the judiciary declines. Nine out of 10 Pennsylvanians regard judicial fund raising as evidence that justice is for sale, and many judges agree. According to a nationwide survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Institute, partisan judicial elections decrease public confidence that courts are fair, impartial and operating in the best interest of the American people.
The first step that a state like Pennsylvania can take to reverse this trend is replace the partisan election of its judges with a merit-selection system, or at least with a nonpartisan system in which the candidates do not affiliate with political parties. In a typical merit-based system, an independent commission of knowledgeable citizens recommends several qualified candidates suitable for appointment by the governor of the state. After several years of service, the appointed judge’s name is then submitted to the voters for an up or down vote known as a retention election.
The second step a state can take is set up campaign-conduct committees to educate voters and the media about the criteria people should use to select judges. These committees can also publicize accurate information about the sources of big contributions, providing the kind of transparency that allows voters to decide whether a judicial candidate’s impartiality may be compromised by her contributors. Finally, the committees can flag inappropriate campaign conduct and provide information to help voters interpret charges made in campaign advertising sound bites.
The boundary of decency was certainly crossed in Pennsylvania this year when a candidate for the Supreme Court was called “the drug dealer’s choice” by the opposing political party because of a decision that she had made to overturn a conviction based on an illegal search. Campaign-conduct committees can help restore a little perspective when the going gets too rough in judicial races.
The third step a state can take is distribute voter education pamphlets to provide accurate and unbiased information about the qualifications of a judicial candidate. Voter education guides can provide information about relevant qualifications that are often left out of campaign ads and meager media coverage.
These three reforms will help, but will not solve the problem of direct interest-group attacks on judicial candidates. Pennsylvania’s experience demonstrates this problem. In addition to the contested Supreme Court seats, 67 state judges were up for retention election in Pennsylvania this year. Retention elections are historically very low profile, but they became contentious in 2007 when a small but organized grass-roots campaign sought to oust all but one of the judges whose names were before the voters because the judges had accepted a legislatively enacted pay raise rather than returning the money to the state treasury. They attacked the judges as “pigs in robes,” conjuring images of greedy out-of-control politicians.
Fortunately, Pennsylvania voters were not swayed by the spurious attack, but that doesn’t mean that the attacks weren’t harmful, as they were essentially all anyone heard about Pennsylvania’s 2007 retention elections. One of the dangers of low media coverage and high interest-group spending is that voters hear only from activists who have targeted a particular judicial race. The Pennsylvania retention races show how easily the issues in judicial elections can be controlled by special interests.
Special interest appeals to emotion and policy preferences tempt voters to join efforts to control the decisions of judges. Voters are less likely to devote themselves to the core value of judicial independence, because when judges apply the law fairly and impartially they cannot guarantee the outcome any particular voter might want. But fair and impartial judging is an essential part of our government, and must be preserved.
In the long term, a commitment to judicial independence will only come from robust civics education, starting at a very young age. Today, only a little more than one-third of Americans can name the three branches of government — much less explain the balance of power among them. If we lose appreciation for our government’s structure and the role of the judiciary within it, it is only a matter of time before the judicial branch becomes just another political arm of the government. With the stakes so high, we cannot wait until the election cycle to educate the citizenry. We must start with civics education in our nation’s schools.
Perhaps children can understand the role of a fair and impartial judiciary better than any of us. Children depend on their teachers, their parents and their sports referees to know the rules and to apply them fairly. Thus schools are the ideal place for the life-long process of civics education to begin. In the meantime, we need to look at practical short-term reforms that will restore public confidence in the selection of state judges.
Justice O’Connor is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
“I know him to be an honest, upright person,” Strong said. “I just think this is going to be a dead-end deal. I can’t believe this guy would every put his career or reputation in jeopardy.”…. this is a judge he’s talking about, right?
Judges come right up through that slime bag lawyer population. We all know how much intgrity lawyers have. This story doesn’t surprise me one bit. I’m not real sure who’s getting “rear ended” in this story.
How about the fine upstanding judge that is suing the dry cleaner for 54M because they lost his most cherished pants.
Makes you wonder about Strong also, doesn’t it? Some “friend”.
If he is honest and “upright” as the quote said we wouldnt have a problem here now would we ??
SUEM: I saw a pathetic video clip of the African American “judge” on CNN. He actually cried over the loss of his pants for one whole week. Not only is he an embarassment to his race and the legal system in total, he’s obviously a jerk who has too much time on his hands.
What I find most frightening is that in the year 2007 Amercia has a legal system in which “judges” lack the stones to toss a suit like this out as being frivolous. It doesn’t make any difference if a customer service promise was broken. Loss of use of one pair of pants for one week isn’t worth much. Another case of no common sense.
I’d like to see some other attorney do a pro bono representation of the cleaner and file a counter-suit for harassment, emotional distress, and discrimination against this clown. My preference would be to take him out back for some “counseling”.
Upstanding apparently means only that he is able to remain in an upright position without apparent assistance. For how long, however……
I guess I am just naive to believe that people in any profession could be corrupt; from Cops to teachers to doctors to lawyers to insurance professionals. No one profession has a monopoly on greed or corruption. I have to point out that to many outside the insurance industry it would be ironic for insurance professionals to deride lawyers and judges of being corrupt when many of those outside the industry find insurance professionals to be corrupt themselves.
Disclaimer time: I can’t possibly know if any of you are corrupt. The posters in this thread are using their unfounded (unless you can site extensive data to back up any claim that all or most lawyers and judges are corrupt) perceptions to insinuate the excess greed and corruption of judges when many people in this country have a similar perception of insurance professionals. We’re talking perception here. And the perception goes both ways.
when anyone, especially an attorney, has to stand up and say a judge is ‘honest and upright’, there is something wrong. a judge, by definition, has to be beyond reproach. to be anything less is to corrupt the ‘better than most’ legal system we have.
It is very interesting that the Judge received $440000.00 from a carrier or TPA.
Is the be payment be due to dishonesty?
If so, why wouldn’t the claim represenatives turn this over to their fraud division?
As you know, typically a claim payment of this amount requires at least a couple of
levels of claim reviews before settlement.
So, does this mean the claims rep, the claims manager and perhaps another level of claims management folks (as well as the SIU folks)all missed the fraud before paying out such a significant amount of money?..I hope this is not the case as it wouldn’t speak well to our competency.
Welp…I guess it must the claimants fault,
of course along their attorney, that 440K was paid out on a claim that supposedly shouldn’t have been…If this is the case,
shame on those us who handle claims as the
checkbook that these payments are coming from is often times controlled by those of us who handle claims.
Just a thought.
Don’t forget that Scooter Libby is a lawyer and a couple of judges vouched for his “character” for his sentencing. Such paragons of virtue…seems like judges take care of their own.
You are so right that it doesn’t make a difference if a customer service promise was broken. If this truly is actionable, then think about all those late night “male enchancement” products going off the market because their claims can’t be backed up, any more than a customer service promise….It’s advertisement, or so I was told; advertisement claims, such as “satisfaction guarantteed”, can’t be held to the same standards as other “speech”.
The judges, the doctors, the attorneys – they all “take care of their own.” Sad state for those of us not in “the club.”
Yes you are naive and after reading all the posts I “never” noticed anyone stating that “ALL” or even “MOST” judges and lawyers are corrupt. I noticed many mention that some are corrupt but that is to be expected in every line/avenue of business. Watch out for qualifiers such as “all” as it makes you and your post sound ignorant.
but I’d love to party with him. Over the counter pills before dirt biking, parachuting, hang gliding, etc. Party on
Garth.
Fair enough. All wasn’t mentioned. But what did the first few posts in this thread imply? Did they imply that we can’t use this story to extrapolate this judge’s actions to the rest of the judges in the country? Hmm..no I don’t think they did.
No matter your thoughts if you find the payments to Superior Court Judge Michael Joyce objectionable this is one of the very few times that you can do something about it. Judge Joyce is up for ten year retention in this November’s state-wide elections. This means that if there are more votes cast not to keep him than to keep him then he becomes history, just like Justice Nigro did two years ago when the public voted not to retain him. It follows that everyone who is upset about what he or she reads about Judge Joyce not only should vote against retention but should strongly encourage others to do likewise, as I am doing.
If you think this man is in any way involved in something unethical, you’re out of your mind! I agree with Dan Strong and add that you should most definitely retain him.
You need to educate yourself on the legal system in Pennsylvania and other states. You have no concept of what is involved in becoming a Judge.
In Pennsylvania the only requirements to become a judge, county or appellate, are to be a citizen of Pennsylvania and member of the Pennsylvania Bar. Oh, yes. There is an informal third requirement, that being to have the intelligence to be able to calculate how many tickets you sold to the county or state political dinner.
Apparently you’re not a member of the Pa bar or you would know that’s no easy feat to begin with. There are other qualifications-search the web (if you know how to…doesn’t seem like you’re remotely educated) and you’ll see that the Judges of the Superior Court are very qualified indeed. Jealousy is not a qualification-sorry Dan, you’ll never make Judge!
I quoted from the Pennsylvania Constitution, Section 5, which deals with the election of judges. Having been a member of the Pennsylvania Bar for over 30 years I feel very sure of what I stated. As concerns jealosy, I never wanted to become a judge, notwithstanding judicial positions having been “offerred me” in the past. And in regard to your comments overall, I sincerely consider you a blessing to blogs of this nature because you are obvious one of the vastly overwhelming number of citizens in this country who are both hard-working and honest, and who find it difficult to understand that there are those, especially in prominent positions, who could be otherwise. I was no different than you until five years ago, but if you read more carefully about judicial qualifications in Pennsylvania you will see that there are absolutely none other than the two I referenced earlier. Indeed, the Bar Association might set standards concerning qualification, experience, etc., but they can be and are ignored by the powers that be. About a dozen or so years ago Pennsylvania voters elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court someone who indeed was a citizen of Pennsylvania and a member of the Pennsylvania Bar, and far more importantly, he had a name extremely similar to an extraordinarily qualified Pittsburgh mayor, to whom he was not even related or had any contact. It follows that when people are called naive in regard to the Pennsylvania judicial system they are in fact, instead, uneducated about it, and justifiably consider that in such a noble profession that cream rises to the top; in Pennsylvania, though, when it comes to the judiciary it is frequently the skim milk that the political parties force on us.
I am VERY surprised that you are an attorney and that you engage in such judge-bashing. I can’t imagine who you may have encountered that have skewed your views in such a negative way as I myself am an attorney in the Commonwealth and have had the polar opposite experience with the Judges of the Superior and Supreme Courts, as well as the few trial judges I have encountered. All the Judges ascended from very prominent positions and if you view the writings of the courts, you can see the scholarship and qualifications shining through. It’s unfortunate that you had negative experiences, but hopefully you won’t hold one negative experience against many qualified individuals. I strongly believe the Judges presently serving should be retained and that the citizens should acknowledge and be educated regarding the candidates.
I have to agree with mikejoyce supporter, lawmandan. I know Judge Joyce personally and he is a terrific, ethical, kind, intelligent man. You can not lump everybody in the same category as you have done. Maybe there are some bad ones, but I must say that Judge Joyce is not a part of that. I most definitely will vote to retain him and encourage others to do the same.
I guess we are all a product of our own experiences. The only specific reference that I make in regard to Judge Joyce, and perhaps this is an old-fashioned attitude, but I respectfully suggest that judges should be beyond reproach and set good examples for the community as a whole. In this regard I am disappointed to date that Judge Joyce has not come out with a detailed exonerating statement. I believe the public is so entitled and if he fails to do so I further respectfully suggest a vote against retention in November. A statement to the effect that he will not provide this information to the public pending the Federal investation would not bode well.
I think the truth speaks for itself-what kind of “detailed exhonorating statement” do you need? Do you know Judge Joyce? If you did, you’d know that to this day he suffers from extreme pain based on the car accident in question. Again, I support Mike Joyce completely-he is an honest, ethical individual and the truth will come out. He should most definitely be retained.
Sorry you must have lost your appeals but don’t go blaiming the court-blame yourself for not being abetter attorney
Don’t care what you say Dan, I stand by my position. I agree with my supporter-the truth will come out-why should he defendant against not having done anything wrong? I don’t believe you’re an attorney-you don’t sound educated in the law. It’s a crime to pose as one of us, by the way. Good bye
I know Judge Joyce-how did this happen? People are nuts trying to get other people in trouble. He’s an honest good man.
You are an idiot lawmandan. What, you want to be a judge or something? Why is it better to oust somebody already there, so some less-than-qualified loser can get in. I think not!
Many should look alot closer to certain issues that involve judges. Usually, when one story comes out, there is another more interesting one that can be told if we had the ENTIRE picture here.
Do we have any OTHER proof beyond this particular case that Judge Joyce would engage in conduct that could be questionable? The rules of law state a judge can not even GIVE THE APPEAREANCE OF IMPROPRIETY let alone ENGAGE in questionable conduct.
For instance, shady or shotty law practices which can be used against him.
OR even KNOWING something could be questionable and engaging as a judge could be considered treason.
Let’s just say we remove him from this case…can we find any others (cases) that would suggest he is corrupt and or dishonest?
I can certainly say, I don’t NEED to KNOW a man to look at a select few cases and tell you that they were less than stellar, especially when it comes to the Constituion of The United States.
What goes around quite certainly needs to come around and if we look deeper in to his actual work “BOUND BY LAW” and not if we “like him” or “know him”, than we can actually make an informed decision based on FACTS.
Unfortunately,(fortunately is some situations), it is not up to us and we can only hope that Judge Joyce’s ENTIRE record in his own judgement is used as evidence in the deciding factor of his fate as a high court Judge. He has had other’s lives in his hands at many junctures during his tenure as Judge in the Superior Court and hopefully he will be met with the same fairness or unfairness he has passed to other American Citizens in Pennsylvania appeallate process.
As most people may or may not be aware, most people do not even know or even are AWARE of the law being debated in this case, so many debates are scattered with what people “think” and “feel” instead of what they KNOW and are bound by LAW.
This is simply where the Judicial System happens to be. Joyce has presided over cases that dealt with Habeas Corpus, Crime Grading, Ex Post Facto Law etc and what does all that mean???
If you have to ask, that is exactly my point.
Dan, did you drop out of the conversation here? Can’t stand the heat? Proved me right-you’re not a lawyer, just an uneducated jealous bigot.
I am sufficiently educated to realize that calling people names and questioning the character of others is not worth my time.
What is so up with all of you? EVerybody is so twitched. Law mandan, why are you so uppity? As a lawyer you claim to be, you should be used to critique. And you joyce supporter, why not let it rest? There are tons of idiots in the world that want to critique the elite-rise above it. I agree that the judgesshould be a bove reproach-and I believe a lawyer questioning that should be disbarred.
Are you saying that no lawyer at any time should criticize any judge on the basis of honesty and integrity? Are you saying that all judges are in fact honest all the time and deal with every case with total integrity?
Assuming you’re truly a lawyer, yes, I feel it is unethical for you to criticize judges. Lawyers and judges are bound by codes of ethics and I don’t think that you are doing a service to the profession by criticizing those that wear the robes.
Lawmandan is not a lawyer naive nottobe. He can’t be or he wouldn’t be that dumb. You can’t accuse judges of being corrupt..etc… That is an ethical violation and he should be disbarred but that’s not a problem since I don’t think he even qualifies for a ged.
Hey lawman, if you are a lawyer then you have a name and an attorney id, mind giving me that? I can give you my private address if you’d like? I hate to accuse you of being a non-lawyer when in fact you may be an unethical lawyer instead?
You guys are getting too off track and too silly here-I’m out. Glad we exposed Dan for who and what he really is and never will be (attorney!) Go Judge Joyce-I suggest all of you vote for a real man, an ethical man, an outstanding person, lawyer, and judge.
All this fussin and now you not mussin-I used to be a damn good lawyer when I was lawyering. That beck witch hurt me.
thank you for your intelligent reply to my question. carlaj wrote an unbelievable reply but i saw where it was written at 3:28am so that should tell it all. my god! to have that much adrenalin pumping through ones veins at 3:28am could lead to a stroke. when one does not know all the details one should ask and that is what i did. from your response, mikejoycesupporter, i would conclude that the judge is a good man because he has your support. i hope he will come out ok. we need good judges and the tendency in our country today is to bring down good people. carlaj is a scary individual. her post made absolutely no sense while yours was intelligent, well thought out and articulated. thank you.
I actually am awake at 3:00 am because I happen to work third shift. 1 pm..HARDLY the sign of a professional time of day. As a medical professional most stokes happen between the hours of 12 and 4 pm..puts you right in the center….
Again off topic.
The topic was legal and law and what this all tells you is that no justice will be sought for the misinformed.
As I said before. Do we have ALL the information on the Judge. Mike Joyce Supporter seems to think so.
Are we voting on Dan or not?
Does anyone differ for any reason with fact and or law?
As you said waiting breathlessly, it was over your head.
I know Mike-great guy-definitely retain him. He’s funny, intelligent and a good guy all around. this fbi stuff is bogus-looks like a scorned ex or something. As for this Dan guy, lets get him-what’s his peeve. He must have been a judge wanna be before he became an unethical disbarred lawyer.
You’re one sick pup danno-I think I know who you actually are-stop f ing with us! What’s the word on tihs Barrish guy-is he a criminal besides the law stuff? Can we have him arrested asap? I’d love to turn in that fellow after he’s talking bad stuff on Mike.
Hey y’all what up today? I think we should go grab Danno and take him to get his discipline! I don’ tknow that Mike Joyce guy but I know a girl he banged-Shelly Beeler. She is one manly man. She dsigned that new casino in Erie-she looks like a transgender dude.
From Pittsburgh newspaper and others throughout the state: “A federal grand jury today indicted a state Superior Court judge for bilking two insurance companies out of nearly a half-million dollars, federal prosecutors said.
Michael Thomas Joyce, 58, of Erie, is charged with nine counts of mail fraud and money laundering.
Prosecutors said Joyce made numerous false representations for two insurance claims related to a 2001 car accident. The companies involved were Erie Insurance Group and State Farm Insurance.”
Supreme Court’s removal of judge salvages some integrity for state system – was the name of this complete article.
What US Attiorney has to say about the evidence presented thus far.
“The bodily injury he says he sustained we believe was fraudulent,” U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said in part of the indictment
FACING 120 YEARS FOR THE MAX AND 2.5 MILLION IN FINES??
HE WAS ALSO SUSPENDED BUT RUNNING FOR RETENTION?
ANYONE KNOW HOW THAT WORKS?
EFFECT THE IMAGE OF THE COURT?
I MEAN EVEN IF ONE CHARGE HE IS FOUND GUILTY (Mail fraud) THAT COULD BE 20 YEARS.
I ALSO READ THAT HE allegedly USED LEGAL LETTER HEAD TO WRITE A LETTER TO ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR HIS PERSONAL AFFAIRS REGARDING THIS INSURANCE CASE.
IS THAT IMMORAL AND ILLEGAL TO USE LETTERHEAD FROM YOUR JUDICIAL OFFICE TO WRITE A LETTER AS A JUDGE?
We are all writing here about how we Know the Judge or lack there of. As I mentioned in postings previous, THE RECORD will stand in regards to the Judge and if any LAWS were broken NOT if he is a “fair” or likeable Judge. Is what he did illegal and does it show impropriert?
Here’s Morning Call article reciting notes from Judge Joyce indictment as per US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.
….Judge Joyce routinely presides over Superior Court cases involving insurance, yet, he had the audacity to use his judicial letterhead to press for compensation. ”He clearly presented himself as a judge,” noted U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, ”and it is possible the insurance company considered that in weighing his claim.”
Earlier, Joseph A. Massa Jr., chief counsel fo the state’s Judicial Conduct Board, said Judge Joyce wouldn’t be legally required to step down because the charges didn’t directly relate to his judicial role. The Supreme Court has rectified that foggy thinking. Didn’t Judge Joyce make some of his insurance claims on his Superior Court letterhead?
If convicted, Judge Joyce could be sentenced to 120 years in prison and fined up to $2.25 million. These are felony charges, not misdemeanors.
More on this article at link below
http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/all-editorial1.6001784aug19,0,433538.story
Suspended Pa. judge pleads not guilty, says he will retire
By The Associated Press
Monday, August 20, 2007
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Suspended Superior Court Judge Michael T. Joyce pleaded not guilty today to federal charges of mail fraud and money laundering, but abandoned his re-election campaign and said he plans to retire when his term expires in January.
For More:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_523159.html
Any thoughts?
The judge ‘pled’ not guilty, it did not say ‘not guilty’. Heck, Ted Bundy pled not quilty at his arraignment. Please go to IJ, 8/21/2007 to the East section and get some truly hilarious updated posting on this judge. YOU might even find it funny(although that may be up for debate.)
Danny boy-why don’t you try to get your law degree back instead of picking on those that are licensed. You are a sad sad sad boy.
Hmmmmm. What happened here?
What happened to Joyce retention?
What was the outcome?
Just because a view is unpopular or a prediction hard to hear does not mean its NOT correct……We have to be willing to make the unpopular opinion for the sake of protecting our Laws and Constitution.
As said recently by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to a PA Audience…..
Sandra Day O’Connor weighs in on Pa. judicial elections
By MARK SCOLFORO
The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. – Ben Franklin would probably have “a lot of pithy remarks” about the need for an independent judiciary if he were around these days, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told a meeting of Pennsylvania judges and lawyers Wednesday.
Efforts to strip federal courts of jurisdiction, have judges impeached after unpopular decisions and eliminate the immunity judges and juries enjoy from civil claims based on their rulings have disturbed her and caught her by surprise, she said.
“I thought an activist judge was one who got up and went to work,” O’Connor said to applause at a luncheon organized by the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence.
O’Connor has expressed similar defenses to an independent judiciary in recent months, but her remarks were especially timely in Pennsylvania, where voters for the first time ever ousted a sitting Supreme Court justice in 2005. Voter anger over a large governmental pay raise was credited with Russell M. Nigro’s defeat.
To be effective, judges have to be confident the legislative and executive branches won’t retaliate against them for unpopular decisions, O’Connor said.
One such state Supreme Court ruling last year restored judges’ pay increases even though the Legislature had repealed the controversial 2005 pay raise law under intense public pressure.
The anti-incumbent activist group PACleanSweep, which helped galvanize voters for Nigro’s defeat, is working to defeat all but one of the 67 municipal, county and appeals judges standing for yes-or-no retention votes in November.
“Don’t get carried away by some across-the-board proposition,” O’Connor said near the end of her remarks. “It’s our duty as citizens to know something about what we’re voting on.”
Bar association president Andrew F. Susko said “no attack has been more bold, more sweeping and more misguided” than the PACleanSweep campaign.
“Every person in this room has a stake in making sure that our justice system remains independent, stable and free,” Susko said.
PACleanSweep chairman Russ Diamond said Wednesday he is confident that new judges will be able to fill any vacancies the voters might create.
“Across-the-board ignoring the constitution, I think, is more dangerous,” Diamond said. “If we don’t live under constitutional rule, then I don’t know what to make of our system of government.”
His group has rescinded its throw-’em-out call in one instance , Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin’s retention race. Her campaign provided evidence she repaid her net raise through the end of 2007.
O’Connor became the first female justice in U.S. history when President Reagan nominated her in 1981. Since retiring from the court last year, she has spoken around the country on threats to the independence of the courts and a need to improve what children are taught about the American system of government.
After O’Connor’s speech, state Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille said voters would be making a big mistake by casting blanket votes against any sitting judge. He is expected to become chief justice when Ralph J. Cappy leaves the bench at the end of the year.
“The one risk is you will lose 730 years of judicial experience in one blow,” he said. “Think about that , seven centuries.”
Earlier in the day, O’Connor, a former Arizona state senator and state appellate judge, toured Pennsylvania’s majestic state Capitol with U.S. Circuit Judge Marjorie O. Rendell, the governor’s wife.
“You have a beautiful Capitol,” she told the luncheon crowd. “Come see ours in Arizona and you won’t be so impressed.”
,,,
Justice for Sale
By SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR
November 15, 2007; Page A25
Voters generally don’t express much interest in the election of judges. This year, as in years past, voter turnout in elections for judges was very low. But judicial elections, which occur in some form in 39 states, are receiving growing attention from those who seek to influence them. In fact, motivated interest groups are pouring money into judicial elections in record amounts. Whether or not they succeed in their attempts to sway the voters, these efforts threaten the integrity of judicial selection and compromise public perception of judicial decisions.
The final four candidates running for open seats on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania raised more than $5.4 million combined in 2007, shattering fund-raising records in Pennsylvania judicial elections. Since 2006, high court campaigns in Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon and Washington also set fund-raising records. Since 2004, nine other states broke records for high court election spending.
Most of this money comes from special interest groups who believe that their contributions can help elect judges likely to rule in a manner favorable to their causes. As interest-group spending rises, public confidence in the judiciary declines. Nine out of 10 Pennsylvanians regard judicial fund raising as evidence that justice is for sale, and many judges agree. According to a nationwide survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Institute, partisan judicial elections decrease public confidence that courts are fair, impartial and operating in the best interest of the American people.
The first step that a state like Pennsylvania can take to reverse this trend is replace the partisan election of its judges with a merit-selection system, or at least with a nonpartisan system in which the candidates do not affiliate with political parties. In a typical merit-based system, an independent commission of knowledgeable citizens recommends several qualified candidates suitable for appointment by the governor of the state. After several years of service, the appointed judge’s name is then submitted to the voters for an up or down vote known as a retention election.
The second step a state can take is set up campaign-conduct committees to educate voters and the media about the criteria people should use to select judges. These committees can also publicize accurate information about the sources of big contributions, providing the kind of transparency that allows voters to decide whether a judicial candidate’s impartiality may be compromised by her contributors. Finally, the committees can flag inappropriate campaign conduct and provide information to help voters interpret charges made in campaign advertising sound bites.
The boundary of decency was certainly crossed in Pennsylvania this year when a candidate for the Supreme Court was called “the drug dealer’s choice” by the opposing political party because of a decision that she had made to overturn a conviction based on an illegal search. Campaign-conduct committees can help restore a little perspective when the going gets too rough in judicial races.
The third step a state can take is distribute voter education pamphlets to provide accurate and unbiased information about the qualifications of a judicial candidate. Voter education guides can provide information about relevant qualifications that are often left out of campaign ads and meager media coverage.
These three reforms will help, but will not solve the problem of direct interest-group attacks on judicial candidates. Pennsylvania’s experience demonstrates this problem. In addition to the contested Supreme Court seats, 67 state judges were up for retention election in Pennsylvania this year. Retention elections are historically very low profile, but they became contentious in 2007 when a small but organized grass-roots campaign sought to oust all but one of the judges whose names were before the voters because the judges had accepted a legislatively enacted pay raise rather than returning the money to the state treasury. They attacked the judges as “pigs in robes,” conjuring images of greedy out-of-control politicians.
Fortunately, Pennsylvania voters were not swayed by the spurious attack, but that doesn’t mean that the attacks weren’t harmful, as they were essentially all anyone heard about Pennsylvania’s 2007 retention elections. One of the dangers of low media coverage and high interest-group spending is that voters hear only from activists who have targeted a particular judicial race. The Pennsylvania retention races show how easily the issues in judicial elections can be controlled by special interests.
Special interest appeals to emotion and policy preferences tempt voters to join efforts to control the decisions of judges. Voters are less likely to devote themselves to the core value of judicial independence, because when judges apply the law fairly and impartially they cannot guarantee the outcome any particular voter might want. But fair and impartial judging is an essential part of our government, and must be preserved.
In the long term, a commitment to judicial independence will only come from robust civics education, starting at a very young age. Today, only a little more than one-third of Americans can name the three branches of government — much less explain the balance of power among them. If we lose appreciation for our government’s structure and the role of the judiciary within it, it is only a matter of time before the judicial branch becomes just another political arm of the government. With the stakes so high, we cannot wait until the election cycle to educate the citizenry. We must start with civics education in our nation’s schools.
Perhaps children can understand the role of a fair and impartial judiciary better than any of us. Children depend on their teachers, their parents and their sports referees to know the rules and to apply them fairly. Thus schools are the ideal place for the life-long process of civics education to begin. In the meantime, we need to look at practical short-term reforms that will restore public confidence in the selection of state judges.
Justice O’Connor is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States