Linda Judson: Not Your Average Judicial Candidate

Jul 202011
 

Linda Judson isn’t your average judicial candidate. Unlike most candidates who are backed up by sponsors and corporations, Linda Judson comes to the table completely free of any ties that could influence her decision making as a judge. This is somewhat unusual, as most judicial candidates have other financiers endorsing them and funding their election campaigns. However, Linda Judson is just different than most, in a lot of ways.

Linda was born and raised in Pittsburgh and has been a Pittsburgh native her entire life. She grew up in a single parent household, since her mother had been widowed when Linda was still quite young. She went to a public school and soon after high school her dream was to go to a medical school. Since her family didn’t have the finances to put her through school, Linda enrolled in St. Francis Hospital’s Licensed Practical Nursing program. By working as a practical nurse, she was able to attend night classes at the University of Pittsburgh and in the next six years she had earned a degree in political science, gotten married, and raised her son, Anthony, all while working full time.

While Linda was attending Pittsburgh University, she developed an interest in the law. She saw there was a chance for her to use her knowledge and interest in medicine in a law practice, and those in the legal profession seemed to encourage her. She started going to night school at Duquesne University School of Law and spent four years studying and working full time as a clerk for various law firms that valued her knowledge and experience as a nurse.

After she graduated from law school she held many positions that would give her the experience that she needed to be a judicial candidate. She was the risk management director at a large construction firm, worked as a lawyer for an international insurance brokerage company, was a non paid treasurer and board member with the Pittsburgh Parking Authority and a certified practical nurse. These positions gave her the experience that she needed to be a formidable candidate for judge in the common wealth court judicial elections in May of 2009.

She did run in 2009 as a progressive democrat, but lost with just 22% of the vote, which was actually not bad, considering she wasn’t the pick of party leaders and there was no scheming to get her into position. The only backing that she had was the years of hard work she had put in and the trust and respect of progressive and independent democrats and her colleagues in the legal profession. Regardless of this loss, however, Linda Judson continues to be a strong example of all of the qualities that should be exhibited in a judge. She continues to practice what she preaches and has a reputation for being fair, honest, straight forward and hard working. Her experience as a nurse has given her a real insight into people and that experience, along with her naturally intuitive and helpful personality, have given her a unique connection with those she seeks to help.

If a spot opens up for another judicial candidate, it is likely we will see a ‘Judge’ Linda Judson in the foreseeable future. She has the right stuff; the knowledge of the law, good work ethic, perseverance, and a fair and balanced view of justice. She would be a great asset to the commonwealth court and no doubt have a bias free court and bring changes to the court’s traditionally male dominated judiciary system.

Who Is Linda Judson?

Jul 202011
 

Linda Judson was born in Pittsburgh, and is a lifelong Pittsburgh native. She grew up in a family of modest means, and was raised by her widowed mother. She attended public school and soon after high school she decided she wanted to go to medical school. Since her mother did not have the funds to put her through college, Linda obtained a Practical Nursing License by enrolling in St. Francis Hospital’s Practical Nursing program. Armed with her LPN license, she worked fulltime as a practical nurse to pay for night classes at the University of Pittsburgh.

While she was attending college, she got married, started her own family, and grew interested in the law profession as she saw opportunities for her to use her knowledge of medicine in a legal capacity. She graduated from the University of Pittsburgh where she had earned a degree in political science, all while working full time as a nurse and raising her son, Anthony.

Her interest in the law had not gone away, and so she applied for and was accepted into the night program at Duquesne University School of Law. She studied law for four years while also working full time as a legal clerk at various law firms that saw the value of her medical background from her years of experience as a practical nurse.

After finishing law school, Linda found work at various law firms and held many positions which would give her the experience that she would later need to become a formidable judicial candidate in the 2009 Commonwealth court judicial elections. She was the risk management director for a very large construction firm, a lawyer for an international insurance brokerage, and a board member and treasurer for the Pittsburgh Parking Authority, which she held as an un-paid position. She was very active in the community, and because of her medical background as a practical nurse, she specialized in worker’s disability claims, workers’ compensation and other areas of law where her knowledge of medicine came into good use.

She decided to run as a candidate for the judicial elections in 2009, and was endorsed by many respected labor organizations in Pennsylvania, and many independent and progressive democrats. She was the only woman running for the position that was recommended by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and gained the trust and respect of a great number of independent and progressive democrats.

However, despite the popular support, Linda lost the election to republican Patricia McCullough. In spite of this loss, however, Linda still remains one of the most respected successful female lawyers in all of Western Pennsylvania. She has continued her work as a lawyer specializing in workers’ compensation and treasurer and board member of the Pittsburgh Parking Authority, a responsibility that is more demanding than one might think. She has gained the respect of many esteemed leaders and if a seat opens up for a Commonwealth Court Judge in the future, Linda has a good chance of being a successful candidate given her history of fairness, dependability, and ethic of hard work.

The Right to a Fair Trial and a Look at the Criminal Trial Methods of the Past

Jul 202011
 

The right to a fair trial is something that most people take for granted. However, it took a long time for this right to be established, and if you were to take a look at the history of how innocence or guilt was established in the past, it would give you a renewed appreciation for our current justice systems and the laws that are put in place to protect those who are accused of crimes.

You might think our justice system is imperfect, that guilty people often get away with things and innocent people are sometimes convicted of crimes that they didn’t commit, and you’d be right. It is imperfect in a lot of ways, but it is far better than justice systems of the past that used a ‘Trial by Ordeal’ method of determining if a person was innocent or guilty.

Trial by ordeal was practiced in many civilizations, and mention of it goes back as far as the Code of Hammurabi, but it was most widely incorporated into the judicial systems of the Europeans in medieval times. There were different ‘ordeals’ that could be utilized, but the idea was that the accused would have to go through something difficult or painful, and if they were able to complete it without dying they were deemed to be innocent. The thinking was that God would protect the innocent by intervening and performing some sort of miracle on their behalf.

Other ‘verdicts’ were decided by whether the wounds of the accused would start to heal within three days or if they started to fester, a sure sign of guilt. Other times, a person was only proven innocent if they did die by the ordeal. This was seen most often when the accusation was for witchcraft or sorcery. If the person was innocent, they would die an innocent man or woman and go on to a suitable reward, usually either heaven or hell, and thus it was considered entirely fair. If they did not die, they were obviously using supernatural means, and thus their guilt was assured.

As mentioned previously, there were different ordeals that a person would be assigned to if they were accused of a crime. The most popular ordeals were as follows:

Ordeal by fire

This required the accused person to walk over a length of hot ploughshares or walk the same distance while holding a red hot iron.

Ordeal of water

There were two different ordeals; one was the ordeal of hot water, where the accused was meant to retrieve a stone from a pot of boiling water. The other was the ordeal of cold water, where they accused was submerged in a stream or barrel of water, and if they did not die, they were deemed innocent. This was reversed later on, so that if the person did survive (after being weighted down with a millstone in some cases) the person was most certainly a witch or sorcerer.

Ordeal of ingestion

This required the accused to eat dry bread and cheese that was blessed by a priest and if they choked, then they were guilty. There was also the ordeal of the Eucharist, where the person was to receive the Eucharist after solemnly swearing his innocence. If the accused was guilty, and the oath he or she had taken was false, the person would die that same year. Other ordeals by ingestion included ingesting the poisonous calabar bean. If the person vomited the bean back up, they were innocent. However, if the person got sick and died, then the person was guilty.

These different methods of judging guilt or innocence should give you an appreciation for how far most cultures have come when it comes to meting out justice.

Why is the Right to a Fair Trial so Important?

Jul 202011
 

Many people don’t realize the importance of getting a fair trial, but the right to a fair trial is something that every country that respects the rule of law abides by. It is deemed as a basic human right, and many laws and mechanisms are in place to make sure that those who are accused of crimes or infractions of the law are provided with a fair trial.

Most criminal courts use a jury to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, and then the judge is the one who will decide on the punishment if the person is found guilty. However, things were not always like this. In the past, those who were accused would often be executed just on suspicion of guilt, or be made to go through horrible ordeals to determine whether God would do a miracle on their behalf because they were innocent, or if they would die during the ordeal.

Even more recently are the instances of lynch mobs hanging suspects, without even proving their guilt. It seems that the way was to execute the person first and then (maybe) ask questions later. There are still courts around the world that deny the accused a fair trial, and base their judgments on bias and questionable evidence. There were even reports recently from the middle east of women being stoned for using beauty products and skin care treatments such as l’oreal and luminess air. However, there are many human rights activists who are fighting these types of trials, and awareness of the problem has increased in recent years.

There are other rights that necessarily go along with the right to a fair trial. Here are few of them:

- The right to a public hearing

This right ensures that there are no secret trials that are free from public scrutiny.

-    The right to be heard by an independent, impartial, and competent tribunal

This right ensures that there will be no bias or tainting of the court’s decision.

-          The right to interpretation

This ensures that those who are on trial in a country that is not their own will be given the interpretation that they need in order to defend themselves.

-    The right to counsel

This ensures that the accused is provided with legal counsel, whether they can afford a lawyer or not.

-          The right to be heard within a reasonable time frame

This ensures that a person does not wait in jail for a trial date that could be years in the future and meanwhile they are serving time for a crime that they may or may not have committed.

These basic rights ensure that all those that are accused of a crime or infraction of the law are provided with a fair and unbiased trial. Any denial of these rights is grounds for a retrial or even an acquittal of the accused was found guilty. Although our justice system is imperfect and sometimes there is no way to prove or disprove the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime, these rules at least help to provide everyone with the fairest possible trial available, and help to eliminate any sort of injustice in the court system.

Understanding the American Court System

Jul 202011
 

The United States’ court system is unique in that there are actually two separate court systems; the federal court system and the state court system. Although these two systems are different and they each hear different types of cases, they are both interdependent on one another and interact with each. Vindicating legal right and solving legal disputes is the goal of both the federal and state court systems. Understanding about each of these systems will give you a clearer picture of the justice system of the United States.

The Federal Court System

The federal court was set up to hear cases dealing with federal, or national, issues. When the American constitution was written, it divided the power and responsibility of ruling the country between the governing bodies of each state and the national government of the United States. The federal court system hears cases that fall under federal law.

Federal courts may preside over criminal and civil cases.

Criminal cases are those in which a federal law has been violated. Federal offenses include:

  • Bankruptcy Fraud
  • Child Pornography
  • Accounting Fraud
  • Bank Fraud
  • Computer Hacking
  • Conspiracy
  • Internet Fraud
  • Controlled Substance Violations
  • Antitrust
  • Corporate Crimes
  • Counterfeiting
  • Multi-Level Marketing
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Drug Manufacturing
  • Weapons Charges
  • Computer Crimes
  • Drug Possession/Sales
  • Export/Import Crimes
  • Social Security Fraud
  • Espionage
  • Gun Law Violations
  • Immigration Law Violations
  • Money Laundering
  • Health Care Fraud
  • RICO Crimes
  • Securities Fraud
  • Customs Violations
  • Tax Crimes
  • Mail Fraud
  • Terrorism
  • Kidnapping
  • Wire fraud

Civil cases presided over by the federal court must have ‘subject matter jurisdiction’. The most common examples of subject matter jurisdiction are cases in which diversity between the parties is questioned. For example, a federal question is raised if there is alleged violation of a federal law or if a federal statute allows the action which the plaintiff is proceeding with. An example of diversity is if the plaintiffs are from two different states and there is more that 75 thousand dollars at stake in the lawsuit. This was the case when a large beauty & wellness company was taking to court for allegedly infringing the right of an unnamed celebrity. More details of this case can be found on this no no hair removal reviews page which provides a brief summary of the case.

The State Court System

The laws and Constitution of each state make up the state courts. States generally have different courts that handle specific types of cases. If the people involved in the case are unsatisfied with the ruling of the trial court, they may take their case to an intermediate court of appeals. The highest court is the Supreme Court, but only a very few types of cases are eligible for review. State courts preside over most criminal cases and contract cases, and they are the final arbiters of state law. Their interpretation of the United States Constitution, however, may be contested and appealed in the United States Supreme court. However, the Supreme Court can choose not to hear such cases that they deem is not important enough to warrant a review, for example, if it doesn’t involve any constitutional issues.

Each state has its own laws and statutes that those within the state must adhere to. As such, state offenses are different in each state.

Having a better understanding of these two different court systems will help you to have a clearer idea of what the justice system in the United States looks like.