My name is Doug Butts and for the last year I have been spending my free time compiling an audit on Second District Court Judge Rodney S. Page. One might ask why anyone would take on such a project, and I will answer that question in a future post, but for now I would like you to know that this audit, when finished, will contain almost a thousand pages of evidence that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Judge Rodney S. Page legislates from the bench.
The evidence and examples compiled in my audit were taken from approximately 3500 domestic cases involving children between the years 1995 and 2006. From those cases 366 were ruled on by Judge Rodney Page. Of those 366 cases Judge Page correctly applied the statutes in question 315 times. In the other 51 cases Judge Page ignored the statues on the books. One might argue that a judge can rule anyway they see fit, but the law is very clear that judges are governed by statute to apply the law, or be held accountable. Statute 78-8-103 1( c ), and Canon 3b(2) reads as follows:
78-8-103 1( c ) Willful and persistent failure to perform judicial duties.
Canon 3b(2) A judges shall apply the law and maintain professional competence. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
The following statutes have been on the books since 1995 and yet twelve years later Judge Page is still changing them at will, without any accountability.
78-45-7.15(3) The order shall require each parent to share equally the out-of-pocket costs of the premium actually paid by the parent for the children’s portion of insurance.
78-45-7.15(6) The order shall require each parent to share equally all reasonable and necessary uninsured medical expenses, including deductibles and co-payments, incurred for the dependent children.
78-45-7.16(1) The child support order shall require that each parent share equally the reasonable work-related child care expenses of the parents.
These are the statutes on the books and unless Judge Page doesn’t know how to add the law says, "equal", which does not mean one party pays one-third of the cost while the other pays two-thirds, or even 100% of the cost. Isn’t it clear that the two parties involved are legally bound to share the cost equally which means a 50/50 split? I think it‘s pretty clear, that is unless you don’t know how to add.
Let’s say I told you that the judge who was going to make a ruling on your case only applied the law correctly 98% of the time, or even 95% of the time on statutes that are very clear. Would you have confidence in that Judge? What if I told you that you had a ten percent chance that your judge would not apply the law correctly possibly resulting in a appeal that could cost you anywhere from ten to forty thousand unnecessary dollars, or more, depending on your personal situation? Would you want to take that chance? In my audit I discovered that Judge Page rules correctly about 86% of the time.
The evidence and examples compiled in my audit were taken from approximately 3500 domestic cases involving children between the years 1995 and 2006. From those cases 366 were ruled on by Judge Rodney Page. Of those 366 cases Judge Page correctly applied the statutes in question 315 times. In the other 51 cases Judge Page ignored the statues on the books. One might argue that a judge can rule anyway they see fit, but the law is very clear that judges are governed by statute to apply the law, or be held accountable. Statute 78-8-103 1( c ), and Canon 3b(2) reads as follows:
78-8-103 1( c ) Willful and persistent failure to perform judicial duties.
Canon 3b(2) A judges shall apply the law and maintain professional competence. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
The following statutes have been on the books since 1995 and yet twelve years later Judge Page is still changing them at will, without any accountability.
78-45-7.15(3) The order shall require each parent to share equally the out-of-pocket costs of the premium actually paid by the parent for the children’s portion of insurance.
78-45-7.15(6) The order shall require each parent to share equally all reasonable and necessary uninsured medical expenses, including deductibles and co-payments, incurred for the dependent children.
78-45-7.16(1) The child support order shall require that each parent share equally the reasonable work-related child care expenses of the parents.
These are the statutes on the books and unless Judge Page doesn’t know how to add the law says, "equal", which does not mean one party pays one-third of the cost while the other pays two-thirds, or even 100% of the cost. Isn’t it clear that the two parties involved are legally bound to share the cost equally which means a 50/50 split? I think it‘s pretty clear, that is unless you don’t know how to add.
Let’s say I told you that the judge who was going to make a ruling on your case only applied the law correctly 98% of the time, or even 95% of the time on statutes that are very clear. Would you have confidence in that Judge? What if I told you that you had a ten percent chance that your judge would not apply the law correctly possibly resulting in a appeal that could cost you anywhere from ten to forty thousand unnecessary dollars, or more, depending on your personal situation? Would you want to take that chance? In my audit I discovered that Judge Page rules correctly about 86% of the time.
Is this a red flag? You bet it is.
Here is another interesting fact that I discovered during my audit. From 1995 to 2006 my search of appellate court cases in the Second District showed that Judge Page had almost twice as many cases as his colleagues in the same time period. In addition, those results showed men almost always had to pay all, or a higher percentage of the attorneys fees as compared to those cases where Judge Page applied the statutes correctly.
Here is another interesting fact that I discovered during my audit. From 1995 to 2006 my search of appellate court cases in the Second District showed that Judge Page had almost twice as many cases as his colleagues in the same time period. In addition, those results showed men almost always had to pay all, or a higher percentage of the attorneys fees as compared to those cases where Judge Page applied the statutes correctly.
Like most branches of government our court systems are paid for by our tax dollars. We have a state auditor, and county auditors, so why is it that we don’t have a judicial auditor? Why is it that every other form of government is subject to an audit and accountability, but not our judicial branch? It’s true that we can vote a judge out, but that rarely happens except in extreme cases, and that quite frankly doesn't help insure justice. I believe that most judges are honest people, but I also believe that a lack of accountability is why Judge Rodney Page only gets it right 86% of the time, and that’s just on the few statutes I covered in my audit. Since we seem to hold judges to a higher standard shouldn’t we expect them to follow the law and not legislate from the bench?
If this audit does anything I hope it helps others to not have to go through the additional loss of time, money, and emotional stress caused by an unnecessary appeal. It seems that my only course of action is to attempt to have Judge Page removed from the bench, but if judges were audited, and held accountable, people would have a greater confidence in government as a whole, and I wouldn't have to go to such extreme measures to make sure that Judge Rodney S. Page, or any other judge doesn't harm your family due to a lack of accountability.
If this audit does anything I hope it helps others to not have to go through the additional loss of time, money, and emotional stress caused by an unnecessary appeal. It seems that my only course of action is to attempt to have Judge Page removed from the bench, but if judges were audited, and held accountable, people would have a greater confidence in government as a whole, and I wouldn't have to go to such extreme measures to make sure that Judge Rodney S. Page, or any other judge doesn't harm your family due to a lack of accountability.
