You are at the Legal Reform Website and the Pro Se Way Website

Reported Judicial Misconduct Committed By Justice Victoria Lederberg In Rhode Island Courts

Judicial Arrogance And Ad Hoc Decision Making Abilities Appear In These Complaints About Judge Victoria Lederberg

Recuse this Judge using a Motion To Recuse if you have good reason to believe that  this Judge will not be fair and impartial.  Also see the page on How To Deal With A Bad Judge.

Complaint One:  It was widely held that Justice Victoria Lederberg's part-time service as a municipal court judge did not qualify her for the Rhode Island Supreme Court.  However, she had served in the Senate and was chosen over other more highly qualified people.  Read the next complaint and you will see Judge Victoria Lederberg had some of the typical traits of many Rhode Island judges - judicial arrogance and Ad Hoc decision making ability.

Ad Hoc decisions are decisions made for a specific purpose.  These decisions are isolated from integrated thinking and sound legal reasoning and are a fancy word for prejudiced, biased, personal opinion based decisions.  Rhode Island judges are famous for 'Ad Hoc' decisions.

Complaint Two:  Judge Victoria Lederberg joined Judge Bourcier in voting to deny Attorney Small the right to practice in Rhode Island without first seeking the court's permission.  [See Ethics Commission page]

In her opinion piece in The Journal ("In defense of R.I. Supreme Court," March 23) Lederberg blamed the debacle on the media and on Atty. Small.  With regard to Mr. Small,  Lederberg quoted extensively from criminal statutes, although no criminal case was before the court.  In an earlier case, Justice Lederberg completely disregarded these same statutes when she joined the opinion praising lawyer Geoffrey Hazard Jr. for his opinion that the separation-of-powers regulation, which would have prohibited legislators from serving on Rhode Island boards and commissions, was beyond the power of the Ethics Commission.  Justice Lederberg heaped this praise on Mr. Hazard even though he had also practiced law without first seeking permission from the Supreme Court.

Justices Bourcier and Lederberg never issued an opinion explaining their reasons for denying Mr. Small's motion to represent the Ethics Commission.  Rather than explain their decision in a legal opinion, these justices went to the press to declare that Mr. Small had been denied the right to practice law in this state because he had committed the crime of not first obtaining their permission.  On June 15, 2001, Supreme Court Justice Robert Flanders issued a dissenting opinion in the matter involving the court's 2-to-1 decision denying Mr. Small the right to practice law in Rhode Island.  Yet on June 19, this majority of two, Justices Bourcier and Lederberg, issued an unusual order directing that Justice Flanders's dissenting opinion not be published.  But Caught has published it!

Graphic Line
Graphic Line
This site is not free, it takes time and money. Please help!
Donate online NOW
Due to volume, we only deal with
electronic communications
now (email).


Is Gay Prejudice Taught In The Bible?   Tithing - Fact vs. Fiction