4 ms·

> Special Judge J. Jeffrey Edens issued a ruling. He awarded Zavodnik a judgment of $30,044.07 for breach of contract. Holy cow. This guy needs to be fired imm

by vinhboy 10y ago

> Special Judge J. Jeffrey Edens issued a ruling. He awarded Zavodnik a judgment of $30,044.07 for breach of contract. Holy cow. This guy needs to be fired immediately. That is beyond gross negligence.

SilasX 10y ago
Depends: are judges supposed to spot-check claims for whether they're reasonable? Or do they leave that entirely as "the defense's job"? Remember, these were default judgments.
- BuckRogers 10y ago
  Yup, sounds like a $40 default judgement to me. I always thought it would be great to be a judge, but I'm far from jumping through all those hoops. If I were one, I'd grant exact, verifiable damages in cases like this. It would have to be a civil case over child molestation, assault, murder or rape to get me to award funny money. In those relatively extreme cases involving heinous crimes, I'd be sure to ruin the life of the perp.
- boznz 10y ago
  "are judges supposed to spot-check claims for whether they're reasonable?" - duhh Yes.
vinay427 10y ago
To be clear, he ran unopposed in 2012 to win his seat on the circuit court. I don't think he can be "fired," but rather "opposed in the next election so he loses his seat." https://ballotpedia.org/Indiana_judicial_elections,_2012_-_Circuit_Courts#Boone_County https://ballotpedia.org/Indiana_judicial_elections,_2012_-_C...
- panglott 10y ago
  This is the problem with these small, nonpartisan offices. Virtually nobody votes in these elections because very few people can make an informed decision, and those informed few have incentives not to endorse/oppose. If the elections are partisan, voters have more information, but elections will become politicized on abortion/social issues (whether or not the judge can rule on such matters). Even in cases of judicial shenanigans, voters choose based on name recognition and advertising, and the incumbent's advantage is enormous, they run unopposed. I am strongly pro-voting, but voting for dogcatchers and low-level judges is really bad.

by vinhboy 10y ago

SilasX 10y ago

Depends: are judges supposed to spot-check claims for whether they're reasonable? Or do they leave that entirely as "the defense's job"? Remember, these were default judgments.

BuckRogers 10y ago
Yup, sounds like a $40 default judgement to me. I always thought it would be great to be a judge, but I'm far from jumping through all those hoops. If I were one, I'd grant exact, verifiable damages in cases like this. It would have to be a civil case over child molestation, assault, murder or rape to get me to award funny money. In those relatively extreme cases involving heinous crimes, I'd be sure to ruin the life of the perp.
boznz 10y ago
"are judges supposed to spot-check claims for whether they're reasonable?" - duhh Yes.

vinay427 10y ago

To be clear, he ran unopposed in 2012 to win his seat on the circuit court. I don't think he can be "fired," but rather "opposed in the next election so he loses his seat." https://ballotpedia.org/Indiana_judicial_elections,_2012_-_Circuit_Courts#Boone_County https://ballotpedia.org/Indiana_judicial_elections,_2012_-_C...

panglott 10y ago
This is the problem with these small, nonpartisan offices. Virtually nobody votes in these elections because very few people can make an informed decision, and those informed few have incentives not to endorse/oppose. If the elections are partisan, voters have more information, but elections will become politicized on abortion/social issues (whether or not the judge can rule on such matters). Even in cases of judicial shenanigans, voters choose based on name recognition and advertising, and the incumbent's advantage is enormous, they run unopposed. I am strongly pro-voting, but voting for dogcatchers and low-level judges is really bad.