Report: #1115981

Complaint Review: Judge Don Pierson

  • Submitted: Thu, January 16, 2014
  • Updated: Fri, January 17, 2014
  • Reported By: AXTD — Fort Worth Texas
  • Judge Don Pierson
    100 West Weatherford Street
    Fort Worth, Texas

Judge Don Pierson Republican of Tarrant County Court at Law #1 Threatened Pro Se litigant before court, showed clear bias for Landlord's Attorney, Refused Jury Trial Illegally, Smirked at Pro Se Litigant as if to say "What do you have to say now?". No Justice for Pro Se. Very Hostile Court. Fort Worth Texas

*General Comment: Ken You Are Wrong. Just because one is poor doesn't mean they should not engage the courts to protect their rights.

*Consumer Comment: First of all, "a defendant representing himself has a fool for a client"...

*Consumer Comment: AXTD,

*Consumer Comment: "JUDGE POEM"...

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

I had the weirdest experience of my life representing myself as a pro se litigant in an appeal against my Landlord in front of Judge Don Pierson. These Fort Worth courts are absolutely terrible. They show clear biases for landowners and landlords and the wealthy and privileged. They are outright hostile to racial minorities and the poor. You can buy justice in many parts of Texas, especially in Fort Worth. Recently a case involving a young, wealthy white teenager named Ethan Couch made

Headline news all over this country and actually all over the world too because he was able to walk away from court after killing four people and critically injuring others because he was "rich". He suffered from "affluenza". This shocked people but I want to say these types of rulings are made in court rooms across Texas and across Fort Worth every single day. [continued below]....

..... These courts are stocked with "Ultra" republican judges who simply believe that those without money and without attorneys should not be afforded "Equal Consideration" under the law.

Now Back to Judge Don Pierson. I have never seen a judge behave as he behaved. First off, he acted like he had a familliarity with the Attorney who was representing the Landlord. That is not surprising as others around the court knew the attorney personally as it is a very small court. But the judge should have at least tried to remain impartial. I had been approved for a Jury Trial which the attorney argued against and which the Judge immediately agreed with the attorney. Even

before the judge had ruled on the Jury Trial, while the Court reporter was out the room and before trial he quizzed the attorney and I about our case. I was not allowed to really speak and it seemed he already had his mind made up. How is that fair? When I had to remind the judge about the jury he immediately denied the request even though I had paid the jury fee and been approved and been given the jury names and information. All because the attorney asked him not to approve it. I heard the attorney ask him to waive it while the attorney was at his desk. 

Then as I mentioned before the court reporter was called into the court room the judge had already essentially ruled on both the validity of the notice and refused to hear my concerns about other issues I had with the landlord that were crucial to my case in disputing the validity of the notice. The judge looked at me several times "before" the court reporter was called in and "before" the trial was in session and said "well, yeah, I agree with the attorney". On every single issue the judge would ask me very pointed questions and say the answer is "yes or no" yet the other sides's attorney was allowed to expound on his issues. Again, how is "that" fair?

Both sides should have been given "Equal Consideration" and that did not happen. This is the SECOND time this has occured out here in Fort Worth. In the Justice of the Peace court who preceded the trial court because I was not represented I was not afforded the opportunity to speak. The judge asked three questions of everyone and refused to get into the legalities of the notice. Judges have to address arguments and afford the respondents a "fair hearing" and a "right to be HEARD". For some reason if you are poor and black in Fort Worth and especially if you are unrepresented the judges do not do this. 

I understand that in a court proceeding there will be a winner and a loser. That is understandale and that is how our court systems work. However, what I can not understand is a judge clearly being so partisan and so partial. I can not understand how a judge can do the job of a defense attorney or a plaintiff attorney FOR THEM. That is SHAMEFUL. That is not justice. 

It hasn't only been my experience with the courts out here in Fort Worth but I've spoken to several other poor minorities who have stated they had the same exact experience. With judges violating their due process rights and working outside of established court procedure. One woman I spoke to stated she had a jury trial scheduled in court against a police officer on a traffic violation and the judge circumvented court room procedure and PICKED HER JURORS!!! and he picked ALL POLICE OFFICERS!! Of course she lost the case as anyone would guess because she was up against another police officer.

Not only that, the judge at one point during the trial referred all of his questions and answers to the attorney and let the attorney basically have the floor for the majority of the trial and I had to remind the judge that I was sitting there. 

Right before the trial the other sides attorney called me into the Exhibit room to discuss the exhibits and he quizzed me on what I was going to say. It was my first time in a court setting and I answered his questions and he immediately walked out and called his client and together they formulated rebuttals to all of my arguements. How is this ethical?

Once when I was speaking I stated I had spoken with an attorney and immediately the judge screamed "WELL, WHERE IS HE!!!?" I asked a question about his ruling on the first issue and he shouted at me "I'M NOT YOUR ATTORNEY!!!"

Last, the judge, who had already decided the case from his behavior and how he spoke to me, looked over at me and smirked. yes the judge SMIRKED!!! It was a clear smirk which is a sideways "grin" and said "now what do you have to say?". He sat back in his seat and kept grinning at me and this made my skin crawl. This guy in my opinion is SADISTIC. A sociopath and I'm not sure why Texans like electing these kinds of folks to the bench. By that time I was so disgusted I simply

walked out of his court. I told him I would appeal. The judge did not make any effort to be impartial. He was clearly partial and was clearly biased in favor of the attorney who had stood before him many times. It was laughable. It was a joke. I was so shocked by the entire proceedings from being threatened before trial to how the judge acted during trial I literally could not speak and it was no use of me staying in there.

The media does not put a spotlight on Texas courts for no reason. These judges here are zealots. Religious zealots. Racist. Ultra republican, biased in favor of corporations and landlords against the poor. If you are poor are thinking about representing yourself in one of these racist, redneck bastions of Texas I suggest you get a lawyer because even if you are knowledable you will not be afforded the same consideration as an attorney. Your arguments will not be given "Equal Weight" which you are guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to the constitution.


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™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/16/2014 08:31 AM and is a permanent record located here: 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. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

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

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 General Comment

Ken You Are Wrong. Just because one is poor doesn't mean they should not engage the courts to protect their rights.

AUTHOR: Mark T. - ()

Attorneys cost MONEY and Ken what you are saying is essentially if one is poor they have no rights to the courts. This goes against our Bill of Rights that guarantee equal access to the courts for ALL and it also goes against what the founders intended. It sounds like this person simply encountered a Judge who felt he could be partial towards the attorney because he was up against a pro se litigant. Thousands of pro se litigants engage the courts every single year and they are expected to be treated fairly and their arguments respected. It sounds as if from what this individual is saying they were not allowed to make their arguments. The judge was wrong in this. Just because this individual was poor or lacked legal representation doesn't give anyone, whether a Judge or not, the reason to trample over their due process rights. That is a violation of their constitutional rights. 

One need not be an attorney to access the courts or to represent themselves. If so, then only those with the financial means to afford an attorney would have access to the courts and this would be fundamentally wrong. This person did right by engaging the courts and the court was wrong to trample over their due process by not affording them the right to make their case and by clearly siding with the attorney so soon when they should have given the arguments more consideration.

This saddens me. Justice should not be BOUGHT but SERVED. 

One also has to keep in mind that Texas is notorious for having these kinds of judges. 

Minorities and the poor should be especially careful. 

I doubt an appeal from this court would bring any fairness as all of the Texas Courts are filled with fundamentalist judges who really are corporatist shills. It would be difficult to get a truly fair trial as they are too political to be able to be objective.

Respond to this report!

#2 Consumer Comment

First of all, "a defendant representing himself has a fool for a client"...

AUTHOR: Ken - ()

This is a very old, very appropriate saying. Let's see, this Republican judge has biases against race/religion/poor and YOU in particular. I can infer from your remarks that you are black, atheist and poor, not to mention stupid for representing yourself....and of course you blame everyone but yourself for losing the decision.

"They show clear biases for landowners and landlords and the wealthy and privileged."

How many other cases that were similar to yours have you observed?  And by similar, I mean the person was dumb enough to represent themselves. What legal arguments were you able to make to the judge and other attorney during the trial? YOUR "opinions"  don't mean a thing.

"in my opinion is SADISTIC. A sociopath.."

All this from ONE trial with a stupid wannabe I forgot, you also said the judge was a "redneck".  How could you have possibly drawn a worse judge. The ONLY Ripoff here is the person YOU had for an attorney...YOU!


Respond to this report!

#3 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: Karl - ()

If you 'Google' this- JUDGE DON PIERSON, it will take you to this Ripoff Report. It means that anyone who does a Google search for Judge Don Pierson will be able to read your Ripoff Report. I believe that most intelligent people will do a Google search on just about anything including people, products, services, weather, foods that might contain GMO's, etc. Having so much free information at our fingertips allows us to make the proper choices, wouldn't you agree?

Have a great day, and make sure to spread your Ripoff Report all over the worldwide web at sites like Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, and Facebook every day!


Respond to this report!

#4 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: Karl - ()

is available at this site. Just type in 502469 and it appears in the consumer comments section at Ripoff Report #502469.

The poem was inspired by the events leading up to Federal Judge Edward Nottingham's resignation due to misconduct. The poem currently appears at Consumer Comment #81 at Ripoff Report #502469.



Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.