• Report: #3319

Complaint Review: Judge Janice Russell

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Tue, September 12, 2000
  • Updated: Sat, May 19, 2007

  • Reported By:Overland Park KS
Judge Janice Russell
Johnson County Court House Olathe, Kansas U.S.A.

Johnson County, Kansas ..corruption ..Committee For Judicial Ethics

*Consumer Suggestion: More Judicial Misconduct By Judge Russell

*Consumer Comment: Judicial Ethics

*Consumer Comment: Judge Russell has been maligned.

*Consumer Comment: Judge Russell has been maligned.

*Consumer Comment: Judge Russell has been maligned.

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

Surfing the net, I came across a web site:

www.johnsoncountykansas.net

It discusses a corrupt Kansas judge. I found this very interesting. I emailed the webmaster and had him fax me many of the court documents so that I could verify this. I then went to the court and spoke with a few of the officials there. They were very rude and would not cooperate, even though this case is not in progress.

This is what is wrong with America. The legal system must deal with children on drugs, split homes, and guns in school. Judges like this are why these things happen.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 09/12/2000 12:00 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Judge-Janice-Russell/Olathe-Kansas-66051/Johnson-County-Kansas-corruption-Committee-For-Judicial-Ethics-3319. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Judge Janice Russell

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 5Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Suggestion

More Judicial Misconduct By Judge Russell

AUTHOR: Bill - (U.S.A.)

There are so few female judges in Johnson & Sedgwick counties, that it is a shame that Judges Pilshaw & Russell have to be as arrogant bullies as their male counterparts. The problem starts at the Kansas Supreme Court and filters down through the Office of Judicial Administration, law schools and Kansas Bar Association to the local District Courts and the local bar associations.

The only thing that I know about Judge Russell is what I have read. Like Judge Pilshaw, Judge Russell practices Soviet style justice in which citizens have their freedoms and property are taken away and/or are ordered to take psychiatric treatments for complaining about the corruption in the family law court.

In 2000 Russell adopted a recommendation by the Johnston County case manager, Kathy Kirk, to order the father, Ray Jagoda, to perform community service because he complained that the case manager, Kirk, would not allow him to have contact with Dr. Huk, his son's psychiatrist.
Kirk wanted to encourage Jagoda to "get a life" and isntead of worrying about his young sons psychiatric care. Russell also ordered Jagoda to pay for his ex-wife's attorneys fees (in my opinion to punish him for objecting to Kirk's recommendation in district court) despite Jagoda's 1st attorneys request for a continuance because his attorneys did not have time to prepare after only a 5-6 week notice.

After losing the case, Jagoda hired attorneys Ron Nelson & Joe Booth to file an appeal (85418) which ws not published. Judges Rulon, Knudson & Wahl ruled that Russell exceeded her authority to order Jagoda to perform community service. However they did not reverse her order to pay his ex-wife's attorney's fees becasue Jagoda had paid the attorneys fees before filing his appeal.
(In my opinion the only thing that the judges and attorneys do not care about justice and only care about making sure that each others' attorneys fees are collected).

I did some follow up research on this case and found:

The case manager, Kathy Kirk, is an attorney and was the executive director of the alternative dispute department at the Supreme Court's Office of Judicial Administraton. Kirk actually wrote all of the guide books for case managers and mediators. In my opinion, this is more proof of the gangster mentality of Stan Hazlett, Art Thompson & the other long-time senior managers.

A couple of years after the decision, Ray Jagoda was awarded custody of his son by a Missouri Court. I suspect that Dr. Huk was drugging up the kid to cover up his symptoms due to the ex-wife's problems and that Jagoda has his young son off the medication.

Attorney Nelson is on the family law advisory committee for the Kansas Judicial Council which has failed to address my complaints to Committee Chairman, Charlie Harris, and Tripp Shawver, Chairman of the Kansas Bar Association Family Law Committee and Professor Elrod. In my opinion no one wants to reform the system because it will reduce the number of disputes which will mean less attorney fees.

In 2004 Washburn Law Professor Linda Elrod wrote me an e-mail to tell me that the legislature was looking at measures to restore accountability to the case managment system. No action has been taken place despite my many complaints over the past 2 years to the 20 member Wichita delegation.

Please contact me at (316)729-9949 or at kiakahahaha at yahoo.com if any Kansas Court has violated your or your child's constitutional rights:

1. Your family law attorney promised to be your advocate and then sold you out at the last minute.

2. The case manager either fabricated evidence or ignored evidence of abuse.

3. SRS investigators fabricated evidence of abuse or covered up evidence of abuse in conjunction with a bitter divorce.

4. Your child has been misdiagnosed and is being drugged up by a mental health provider appointed by a case manager or judge.

There have been a dozen parents that have contacted me in the past 2 weeks about the corruption in Wichita since I posted my name & phone number. I know of a few few courageous legislators willing to fight this problem. They also need to hear corruption stories about family law courts in other parts of Kansas.

If you have friends or family members whose lives have been destroyed by these evil, greedy attorneys & mental health providers, please:

1. Vote out every Supreme Court or Appellate Judge.
2. Ask you local judges and lawmakers to publicly acknowledge the problem by sending them e-mails.
3. Contact your friends and neighbors by e-mail with a link to this article or my e-mail address.

Please try not to be upset with your ex-spouse. The corruption is caused by the cronyism, greed & elistist mentality by the professonal ethics judges, attorneys, doctors and mental health providers. Next year we need to vote out most of office most of the 15 Wichita District Court judges that are up for re-election.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

Judicial Ethics

AUTHOR: Amer - (U.S.A.)

I am sure this judge does not compare to Pilshaw in Sedgwick County Kansas:

State twice reprimands judge
One order says Rebecca Pilshaw mishandled a probation case; the other involves the filing of motions.

A Sedgwick County district judge has received a public reprimand from the state.
Judge Rebecca Pilshaw received two cease-and-desist orders from the Commission on Judicial Qualifications over ethical complaints. One determined that she mishandled a probation case for a key witness in a murder case that was later dismissed.
Pilshaw did not contest either of the anonymous complaints.
"She believes that it is the Commission's job to interpret and apply the Canons of Judicial Conduct to specific fact situations," Pilshaw's lawyer, Steve Joseph, said in an e-mail statement Tuesday. "They did in these two cases, and if these situations arise again in the future, Judge Pilshaw will be very careful to conform her conduct to the interpretations given by the Commission."
One order concluded Pilshaw improperly held an informal probation hearing for Kenneth Junious, a key witness in a 2005 murder case.
The complaint had been spurred by a report published in The Eagle about the dismissal of murder charges against Surgio Johnson on the eve of his trial.
Pilshaw had met with Junious at police headquarters to assure him she'd follow the state's recommendation for probation if he testified against Johnson.
A judge later ruled Junious' testimony inadmissible, and the state dropped the charges against Johnson.
The order determined Pilshaw held an "informal" probation violation hearing that should have been heard in a public courtroom.
The commission also determined Pilshaw erred "by participating in a closed meeting that could, in reasonable minds, undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
The other order involved the judge not allowing a motion by a man convicted of kidnapping to be filed in the public court file.
Pilshaw, "in this instance, followed an alternative procedure in which she apparently received the merits of motions in order to determine whether the motions should be filed with the clerk of the district court," the commission wrote.

Motions are usually filed with the clerk before a judge hears them.
"These are both procedural violations that judges are sensitive to," Joseph said on the judge's behalf.
Pilshaw is the third Sedgwick County District Court judge to receive the rare public orders during the past year, and the first to receive two.
Judges Warren Wilbert and Richard Ballinger received orders last March and April that said they improperly fraternized with courthouse employees.
By comparison, four such orders were issued in Kansas in 2004, and all were priva
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Consumer Comment

Judge Russell has been maligned.

AUTHOR: Susan - ()

I cannot claim Judge Russell is perfect - after all, she is a human being. However, I do know that in the case with which I am familiar, she made an effort to be fair, and ultimately ruled in what she felt was the best interest of the children invovled.

Her decisions are sometimes unpopular, but I think it is a strength, not a weakness to be willing to make unpopular decisions if she feels they are right.

Some of the comments on that website about her are clearly made by disgruntled people who did not receive the ruling they wanted. That does not mean that they are right and Judge Russell is wrong. There are completely unsubstantiated innuendos (like implying that she may have received financial remuneration for endorcement of the construction company). Other remarks border on sexism and absurdity, like the remark about PMS.

Surely there are companies/people in positions of authority much more deserving of critical attention on your website.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Comment

Judge Russell has been maligned.

AUTHOR: Susan - ()

I cannot claim Judge Russell is perfect - after all, she is a human being. However, I do know that in the case with which I am familiar, she made an effort to be fair, and ultimately ruled in what she felt was the best interest of the children invovled.

Her decisions are sometimes unpopular, but I think it is a strength, not a weakness to be willing to make unpopular decisions if she feels they are right.

Some of the comments on that website about her are clearly made by disgruntled people who did not receive the ruling they wanted. That does not mean that they are right and Judge Russell is wrong. There are completely unsubstantiated innuendos (like implying that she may have received financial remuneration for endorcement of the construction company). Other remarks border on sexism and absurdity, like the remark about PMS.

Surely there are companies/people in positions of authority much more deserving of critical attention on your website.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Consumer Comment

Judge Russell has been maligned.

AUTHOR: Susan - ()

I cannot claim Judge Russell is perfect - after all, she is a human being. However, I do know that in the case with which I am familiar, she made an effort to be fair, and ultimately ruled in what she felt was the best interest of the children invovled.

Her decisions are sometimes unpopular, but I think it is a strength, not a weakness to be willing to make unpopular decisions if she feels they are right.

Some of the comments on that website about her are clearly made by disgruntled people who did not receive the ruling they wanted. That does not mean that they are right and Judge Russell is wrong. There are completely unsubstantiated innuendos (like implying that she may have received financial remuneration for endorcement of the construction company). Other remarks border on sexism and absurdity, like the remark about PMS.

Surely there are companies/people in positions of authority much more deserving of critical attention on your website.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory