Hon. Leonard D. Wexler (E.D.N.Y.) Judge Leonard D. Wexler does not listen to bail hearings where defendants have exhausted finances to have them prepared. He allows evidence which should be carefully reviewed, and suppressed, into his courtroom, where the lawyers have to fight their way out of a paper bag on behalf of their defendant. He allows FBI agents to present improper evidence at trial without stopping the trial, thus siding with the government, and putting the defendant in further jeopardy. He uses humor to pull the jury into the government's position. He says, "The jury doesn't want to deliberate any longer. The want to go to...holiday." He cares more about pleasing the jury, and less about presenting a fair trial for the defendants. He is wasting taxpayers' dollars, allowing defendants to serve serious time due to his unfair practices during trial. He intimidates defense lawyers during the trial, sending subliminal messages to the jury. He allows unfair charges "some of which he has never heard of" to be placed against defendants by corrupt and unfair DA's, who are not the actual DA at trial, causing defendants to exhaust further finances on appeals. I'd like to speak to him face to face! Is there a lawyer out there who would like to fight our case and bring our loved one home where he belongs?

Hon. Amy J. St. Eve (N.D.Ill.) I though she started out looking like she was going to be a disaster - she jumped too fast and made strange rulings based on her desire to rule quickly. After an awful first year or so, she has grown considerably. Now she is a thoughtful and fair jurist. I do not doubt for a moment that she is extremely conservative individually but I do not see signs that she lets her political philosophy interfere with her ability to be fair as she sees it. She also showed signs of great compassion toward me when I had a family issue that required some delicate handling in scheduling. I rate her an A plus.

Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly (N.D.Ill.) Judge Kennelly is smart and quickly identifies whether he thinks the parties have good arguments. He is somewhat no-nonsense, and if you make a stupid argument, he will not be pleased with you. However, he is extraordinarily fair and reasonable in setting deadlines, etc. He will try to schedule in such a way to make cases settle if he thinks the case should settle, and he is willing to grant summary judgment when there are no issues of fact - he won't invent a fact. Very patient with pro bono plaintiffs and attorneys on appointment.

Hon. Lyle Strom (D.Neb.) There was a 2008 employment discrimination case before this judge, in which the judge sold out the plaintiff by pressuring her to settle her claims right before the jury was slated to bring deliberation. The judge was concerned because two juries had been excused during the trial by the judge and the judge felt that this would cause appeal issues for him. The judge's career law clerk agressively pushed the plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyers to settle without regard for fair process. The plaintiff settled for a fraction of what the jury would have offered; the judge later stated out loud, after visiting the jury, that the jury was "mad at the defendant" but did not seem to care how the judge had helped railroad the plaintiff. Unbelievable and astonishing.

Hon. George P. Schiavelli (C.D.Cal.) This judge is very skillful at deceptively creating an impression of being fair and pleasant, when, in fact, he is extremely pro-civil-defendant and pro-government. He is quite bright, and attentive to detail. Unfortunately, he uses his intelligence selectively to help the side he wants to win. He is very quick to sanction attorneys without notice or good cause, and has been recently been reversed for this conduct. He will refuse to enter a judgement on a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff he does not like. In one case, only after two years and a writ of mandate from the Ninth Circuit did he issue the judgment. He then denied the prevailing party even one dollar of attorney's fees under statute. This too was reversed.

Hon. Virginia A. Phillips (C.D.Cal.) While she can be a bit cranky at times and be brutal on lawyers and their nonsense, she is as smart as they come and is the person you would want in argument. She is completely engaged and follows the reasoned analysis wherever it goes. Not a government leaning judge, unlike the fellow down the hall from her. Has a deeper understanding of the nature of judging than any of the fifty odd Article III judges I have appeared before in my so-called career.

Hon. Richard Seeborg (N.D.Cal.) How on earth has this magistrate judge not been elevated yet? He is a far better judge than most of the federal judges sitting on the Northern District bench. His opinions are issued immediately with no delay, he reads through them, thoroughly researches issues, and is just all around a fantastic judge who treats people with unfailing courtesy.

Hon. Bernard Zimmerman (N.D.Cal.) As a pro se litigant who is well aware of the bias of many judges in federal as well as state courts, I was pleasantly surprised to find Judge Zimmerman consistently fair and impartial, knowledgeable, and quick to respond to motions and discovery problems (often within days as contrasted to judges who take months). He was willing to change his ruling when he realized he had made an error in dismissing with prejudice a cause of action (no doubt due to hasty reading, which can be excused because the courts are overwhelmed and understaffed). If only more judges were like Judge Zimmerman.

Hon. Lewis T. Babcock (D.Colo.) Most recently Judge Babcock sanctioned a pro-se litigant for filing a motion under FRCP 60, which he then denied upon reciept of the defendant's reply...without comment. I reviewed the docket in that case, and Judge Babcock has denied a half a dozen motions in a row upon reciept of the defendant's reply in the case with virtually no comment or factual finding of any significance attached to any of the said denials. (No rebuttal was even allowed by the pro-se litigant prior to any of the denials.) In fact I found that Judge Babcock even denied the pro-se litigant his statutory costs after the litigant won his patent infringement case at trial (a rare victory for any pro-se litigant, especially in the 10th Circuit). A disgrace to the judicial process, and to the rest of us that work within it. This is the United States, "with liberty and justice for all," except the pro-se litigants and anyone else (including staff) that upsets his version of reality.

Hon. Alan J. Baverman (N.D.Ga.) Hard to believe Judge Baverman would stoop so low, but the allegations appear to be well supported with numerous affidavits and evidence. It really looks bad for him. If he had recused himself, at least it would have looked better! He should not have any input into cases where he, his wife, and his nephew had such significant financial interests.