Neutrals are supposed to be just that-----neutral. Is it thus appropriate for a Neutral to google info on a party beforehand?
Judge Crowley stated that he had googled me....he did not state to the McCuskers that he had googled them, but it was clear that he had done so.
This is extremely borderline behaviour for a Neutral. It means that he went into the mediation with preconceived notions about both parties......which notions may or may not be true, since they were based on information simply dredged off the internet.
The Neutral is there to listen to what both sides present. Any preconceptions he brings to the table are not helpful----and I say this in spite of the fact that my reputation likely helped Crowley's notions about me; and the McCusker's internet-trail probably did not help them.
Mine was a simple defamation tort case. As previously noted, both Liz and Steve had already admitted to the tort under oath. So this case was a true slam-dunk. Without getting into the legal-weeds, the defamation was so egregious that it fell into a special area of defamation law wherein I didn't have to prove damages----damages were assumed. Judge Crowley knew this, and the McCuskers knew it, because it had been at the very core of their depositions.
Now he was supposed to be a Mediator. He should not have had any preconceived notions about us. But he'd googled us? Excuse me? To find out WHAT?
This is extremely borderline behaviour for a Neutral. It means that he went into the mediation with preconceived notions about both parties......which notions may or may not be true, since they were based on information simply dredged off the internet.
The Neutral is there to listen to what both sides present. Any preconceptions he brings to the table are not helpful----and I say this in spite of the fact that my reputation likely helped Crowley's notions about me; and the McCusker's internet-trail probably did not help them.
Mine was a simple defamation tort case. As previously noted, both Liz and Steve had already admitted to the tort under oath. So this case was a true slam-dunk. Without getting into the legal-weeds, the defamation was so egregious that it fell into a special area of defamation law wherein I didn't have to prove damages----damages were assumed. Judge Crowley knew this, and the McCuskers knew it, because it had been at the very core of their depositions.
Now he was supposed to be a Mediator. He should not have had any preconceived notions about us. But he'd googled us? Excuse me? To find out WHAT?
I was thus astounded when Crowley's first questions were about my own income.
What?
Why is this relevant?
He not only asked me what my income had been the prior year; he also asked how much was earned income and how much passive income.
At first I was very rattled. He's a judge, and it is deeply inculcated within me that one answers a judge's questions.
So I started to answer his question, but then thought it through. I refused to answer.
At first I was very rattled. He's a judge, and it is deeply inculcated within me that one answers a judge's questions.
So I started to answer his question, but then thought it through. I refused to answer.