 |
| Judge Jennifer Sletvold |
A lawyer who represents someone in a criminal case has a duty to represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law Regardless of personal beliefs, his job is to insure that the person he represents gets the best possible defense he can provide. But this runs counter to a factory system of criminal justice in which defense lawyers are all too often regarded by judges as the third wheel on a bicycle rolling an accused off a cliff.
Judges are interested in putting up numbers. That's why they want a conflicts counsel present on arraignment day, when over a hundred people are herded in and out like cattle. That conflicts counsel, who should only represent indigent defendants because of a conflict in the Public Defender's office, will approach Defendants who could easily afford a lawyer and "represent " them for free. The goal is to rush an unwitting defendant, who just might be innocent, into a plea. If that ruins his life, well that's just too bad. The court can retreat to its sanctum sanctorum, isolated from the public, and grow increasingly concerned about low class people who always are getting in trouble.
Recently, there was a conflicts counsel who actually thought his job was to represent his clients zealously. So he filed all kinds of motions But some were febrile. He even tried to subpoena an assistant DA whom he thought had committed perjury. Some of his work was the product of being both callow and a bit too enthusiastic.
Instead of seasoning and encouraging him, the court stopped using him.
All of this brings us to Clinton Oxford, who was stalking and threatening his probation officer. She is a very nice person and consummate professional. I sat in on part of the trial. Oxford was guilty as hell, and obviously needs help for mental health issues as well as substance abuse. Not only did Sletvold deny a mental health evaluation, but she waxed him up with a 10-19 1/2 year sentence, which is ridiculously harsh. .
Was Judge Sletvold biased?
Before she was a judge, Sletvold once represented this probation officer and disclosed this fact. Nobody complained until Oxford was convicted, so he's in no position to complain now.
But Sletevold is most certainly biased. So is the entire court. That's because the victimized probation officer is a judicial employee. She works for the judges. There is no way they were going to allow Clinton Oxford to walk after terrorizing one of their own. But trial lawyer Tony Ryback was repeatedly chastised when he tried to make this argument, even to the point of admonishing him in front of the jury and dragging in the Chief Public Defender in an attempt to intimidate him further.
The NorCo probation office had the pre-sentence report prepared by another county precisely because they had the good sense to recognize they were biased. So is the court.
The two lawyers at whom Judge Sletvold has directed her venom - Tony Rybak and Tyree Blair - made many arguments I consider spurious. Rybak's courtroom antics and brief on appeal are feckless. Tyree Blair's reference to nonexsistent Facebook conversation between judge and victim or Morning Call conversations between judge and reporter are risibly absurd. But as Judge Sletvold seems to have forgotten, they both had an obligation to provide a zealous representation. Blair made clear that he had no evidence to back up these strange allegations, so he acted within the bounds of the law.
In short, they both acted ethically. Sletvold did not. She observed that Oxford, the man she sent away for ten years, demonstrated a "marked lack of boundaries." She adds that Rybak and Blair "have demonstrated that they share this quality."
Maybe she should send them away for 10-19 1/2 years.
Sletvold's opinion castigates two lawyers who decided to do their job instead of making it easy for the court to rack up numbers. Hopefully, the defense bar has noticed.
Judge Sletvold Denies Bias, But Steps Down by BernieOHare on Scribd
38 comments:
An example of judicial arrogance from an inexperienced judge.
Clinton Oxford was one of your best posters, hope you visit him often and put money on his books so the Black Guerilla Family doesn't make him into a meat puppet.
#FreeClinton
Bernie, be careful! Jen Sletvolt is a very vindictive person and she holds grudges in perpetuity.
I know this from personal experience with this shallow woman!
Watch how she treats you beginning today forward and you will see what I mean.
So this story has no GOOD guys only BAD guys. A terrible judge, who should not have been elected in the first place. A criminal, who has repeatedly broken laws. And a couple of feeble, inept lawyers. 3 blind mouses
She's our version of New Jersey and its bully / asshole of a governor.
In my humble opinion, the court has come down a long way since I practiced and Judge Friedberg was President Judge.
Better not run into her in the cafeteria, Bernie. A scolding cup of coffee may end up poured on your head.
Clinton was wrong. He really messed up but this extreme sentence was god awful unbelievable. He did not deserve to have a boulder dropped on him by this judge. It is obvious she had an axe to grind and was going to make a fine example of Oxford for all to marvel at and boy did she ever come thru. Reduction is sentence is called for under the now public circumstances that have been revealed here and at the Morning Call offices.
"Bernie, be careful! Jen Sletvolt is a very vindictive person and she holds grudges in perpetuity."
I could understand her anger at having her integrity impugned, but she has to understand that the lawyers involved here were just doing their job, however inartfully. Criminal defense lawyers should take notice of these recent trends.
"Clinton was wrong. He really messed up but this extreme sentence was god awful unbelievable. He did not deserve to have a boulder dropped on him by this judge. It is obvious she had an axe to grind and was going to make a fine example of Oxford for all to marvel at and boy did she ever come thru. Reduction is sentence is called for under the now public circumstances that have been revealed here and at the Morning Call offices."
Bingo. It is a ridiculously harsh sentence. But in my view, the ENTIRE bench is tainted by virtue of the probation officer's employment by the court. How can the probation office recognize this conflict, but not the court?
"Clinton Oxford was one of your best posters, hope you visit him often and put money on his books so the Black Guerilla Family doesn't make him into a meat puppet."
Clinton Oxford was one of my regular commenters before he began using again. I was repeatedly and falsely accused of impersonating him by Jim Gregory and Tricia Mezzacappa. When I pointed this out, Mezzacappa claimed that comments from Clinton Oxford were posted here after his arrest. That was false, too. In fact, he stopped commenting here several months before his arrest because he was using again.
If sletvold is the committed public servant she should be, she will demonstrate that commitment by accepting her flaws and step down and over to something she can do appropriately to serve her community, her county, and her country, if she doesn't she validates her selfish need to be a person in power who stinkin' thinkin' will occasionally appear in special interest at the expense of the innocent or less established. Please step down judge, Deep inside you know you're not fit. You won't make this country great again, you're the privileged status quo.
Bernie this is a great searing piece but you're missing the elephant in the room, Clinton was one of Jim Gregory's biggest detractors on this blog during the summer of 2013. Gregory on his WGPA program "The Mouth That Roared" stumped eloquently for Jen Sletvold and made no secret Unity PAC 108 was backing her. Could the harsh sentence for Clinton have been some form of political payback for Gregory's handiwork?
Just another day in the life of Northampton County....
Bernie, although I don't think you have the moral compass to dictate the ethical and moral integrity of the court you have hit the nail on the head here.
I have a very nice moral compass, but I broke it.
Sometimes it takes a broken man to identify and fix a broken system..so don't take it personal
I don't. I'm hardly a role model for anyone and I also pick my nose. Fortunately, several persons who never sin or go to the bathroom have reached the same conclusion.
8:42, Let's refrain from calling people names or making misogynistic remarks. That helps nothing. I took Judge Sletvold to task because I believe her opinion is designed to chill the Sixth Amendment. I have avoided attacking her personally and will not host personal attacks.
Sletvold is vindictive and totally inexperienced. This is totally visible here. Hopefully the voters remember when retention of the judge is on the ballot!
Judges rarely admit they have a conflict or bias, but it's the appearance of a conflict that should have triggered her recusal. Scolding public defenders and criminal defense attorneys for doing their job is downright unacceptable. I wish some out of county defense attorneys would swoop down in Northampton County and change the sick environment that the present judiciary has created...an environment that the present bar succumbs to.
Looking for more Blogs about this biased Judge Jennifer 'Karen' Sletvold.....I am creating my own and working on it now.....Northampton County Juvenile Court Biased Judge, should be ready for publication today or tomorrow. Anyone know a ethical family law lawyer that will help our family, please contact us here or at libertyauctions@rcn.com
The Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct
Rule 1.1 Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
(4) Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.
(5) ‘‘Impropriety’’ is a defined term in the Terminology Section of the Code. Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge. This test differs from the formerly applied common law test of whether ‘‘a significant minority of the lay community could reasonably question the court’s impartiality.’’
Rule 2.2. Impartiality and Fairness.
A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
Comment:
(1) To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.
(2) Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question. This comment is not intended to restrict the appropriate functions of the courts in statutory or common law review.
(3) When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule.
(4) It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters heard fairly and impartially.
Rule 2.3. Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
(C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, based upon attributes including but not limited to race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.
(D) The restrictions of paragraphs (B) and (C) do not preclude judges or lawyers from making legitimate reference to the listed factors, or similar factors, when they are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.
(1) A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.
(2) Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice. A judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased.
(3) Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.
(4) In disposing of matters promptly and efficiently, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases in ways that reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.
Rule 2.6. Ensuring the Right to Be Heard
(A) A judge shall accord to every person or entity who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person or entity’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
(B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.
Comment:
(1) The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.
(2) The judge plays an important role in overseeing the settlement of disputes, but should be careful that efforts to further settlement do not undermine any party’s right to be heard according to law. The judge should keep in mind the effect that the judge’s participation in settlement discussions may have, not only on the judge’s own views of the case, but also on the perceptions of the lawyers and the parties if the case remains with the judge after settlement efforts are unsuccessful.
Among the factors that a judge should consider when deciding upon an appropriate settlement procedure for a case are:
(1) whether the parties have requested or voluntarily consented to a certain level of participation by the judge in settlement discussions,
(2) whether the parties and their counsel are relatively sophisticated in legal matters, (3) whether the case will be tried by the judge or a jury,
(4) whether the parties participate with their counsel in settlement discussions,
(5) whether any parties are unrepresented by counsel, and
(6) whether the matter is civil or criminal.
(3) Judges must be mindful of the effect settlement discussions can have, not only on their objectivity and impartiality, but also on the appearance of their objectivity and impartiality. Despite a judge’s best efforts, there may be instances when information obtained during settlement discussions could influence a judge’s decision making during trial, and, in such instances, the judge should consider whether recusal may be appropriate. See Rule 2.11(A)(1).
The above blogs are information regarding 'what a judge is supposed represent'; and the ideals of what a judge is required to act like towards all parties, lawyers and defendants alike. Judge Sletvold is clearly violating the ethics of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct.
I believe at this point you must I’d yourself if u want to be published
Thank you Bernie. I deleted the other posts, and will revise them in a more profound and dignified manner. I was venting before, and my wife made me remove the other posts. I am, obedient to her wishes.
Looks Luke you may have. What is your name?
In a common law marriage case in which Judge Sletvold presided. My ex claimed we exchanged vows privately near the end of July 1997. The exchange of these vows constitutes a common law marriage. Without these vows there is no common law marriage. My ex did not know the day of the exchange of these vows. Judge Sletvold ruled that a common law marriage had taken place. Even though my ex could not establish the day this exchange took place, the wedding day.
Post a Comment