THE ROBING ROOM

She lacks a sense of fairness. She did not conference the case once during the trial. Every ruling was against the military reservist, giving him no chance of winning. She had no idea of how to determine credibility. She did not marshal the evidence. This judge lacks a sense of humanity. She may be effective when settling cases, but she had no conferences and made no attempt to do so. She believed that there was no merit to the case before it began. Did she know the plaintiff or his law firm? If so, there was a severe conflict of interest. Under a pretense of possessing knowledge, she disallows evidence unfairly and permits wrong inferences. In the case of Hart vs. Epstein, she exhibited a preference for Epstein, as if she knew him personally. She showed a lack of knowledge of the USERRA law. Her past indicated that she had a conflict of interest and should have excused herself. Her only answer to criticism is to send U.S. Marshals. Her rulings to exclude evidence favorable to the reservist invited back from Iraq and then fired without cause within three days is a tragedy for our country, which has been put under the rug.