Hon. Michael Moore

Fairness & Impartiality: tyrant

Fairness & Impartiality: Very biased

custody settlement Legal Knowledge: very harsh comments toward Dad of children….ie. unfit and danger to children without any specific mention of incidents that would support these claims….then he had that comment removed from the official court record Fairness & Impartiality: very biased and short with Dad Communication: no specific reasons to call a Dad unfit or a danger to children

As a court watcher, I found this hearing deeply troubling. The proceeding created a serious appearance of judicial partiality and prejudgment, raising fundamental concerns about whether meaningful due process and a fair opportunity to be heard were provided. Courts must not only administer justice impartially—they must conduct themselves in a manner that leaves no reasonable doubt about their neutrality. When a proceeding appears predetermined or one-sided, public confidence in the judiciary is damaged. Family courts exercise enormous power over parents and children, making impartiality, due process, transparency, and judicial accountability absolutely essential. Legal Knowledge: Based solely on what I observed during this proceeding, the serious questions surrounding judicial impartiality, due process, and the appearance of prejudgment warrant independent scrutiny. This is precisely the type of matter that an appropriate Public Integrity Unit or judicial oversight authority should review objectively to determine whether established ethical and constitutional standards were followed. Public confidence in the judiciary requires meaningful accountability whenever the fairness of a proceeding is legitimately called into question. Fairness & Impartiality: From my perspective as a court watcher, this proceeding raised profound due-process concerns. Relevant evidence appeared to be disregarded, and the pro se litigant did not appear to receive a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Regardless of representation, every litigant is entitled to an impartial tribunal, fundamental fairness, and meaningful due process. What I observed fell deeply short of those principles. Judicial Temperament: The judge’s conduct appeared extremely unprofessional, dismissive, and unnecessarily rude. From my perspective as a court watcher, the behavior went beyond poor courtroom demeanor and raised serious questions about compliance with the standards of judicial conduct, particularly the obligations of impartiality, patience, dignity, and fairness owed to every litigant. Communication: Most concerning was the judge’s manner of communication and overall courtroom demeanor. At times, his speech and presentation appeared sufficiently unusual to raise legitimate concerns about his condition and ability to preside effectively; however, I cannot determine the cause from observation alone. Combined with the apparent lack of patience, professionalism, impartiality, and appropriate judicial temperament, the proceeding raised serious concerns about adherence to fundamental standards of judicial conduct. Timeliness: Equally troubling was the court’s handling of timeliness. Repeated postponements and procedural delays appeared to prolong the litigant’s separation from his children, turning delay itself into a consequence with profound effects on the parent-child relationship. From a court watcher’s perspective, the lack of timely resolution, combined with the other due-process concerns observed, created the disturbing appearance of a serious miscarriage of justice.

TYRANT!