Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

blu3dice t1_ivgxraw wrote

>Kristi Fulnecky has thick skin and does not easily get offended.

OK 👍

16

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_ivgz4g2 wrote

That judge also denied Cox Health's motion to dismiss the case. On top of that she was suing Cox Health and the CEO of Cox Health, not a clinic. I see no corruption on the judges part and the case was handled well. Cox Health did not release information about her son, they shared a screenshot of the post she made. She released the information about her son.

14

ShadowsNMirrors OP t1_ivh45br wrote

Replying to ShartsvilleDestroyer (#467,626)

It's right in front of you face....

Here are the Missouri Supreme Court's Rules on when Judge's should recuse themselves:

https://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f8625

6ba50057dcb8/e14db401df7f552e86256ca6005211b7#RULE%202-2.11%20Recusal

RULE 2-2.11 Recusal

(A) A judge shall recuse himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality

might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s

lawyer or knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding that would

preclude the judge from being fair and impartial.

(2) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s

spouse, parent, or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge’s

family residing in the judge’s household is:

(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee

of a party;

(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(c) a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the

proceeding; or

−7

ShadowsNMirrors OP t1_ivh4xfv wrote

Nothing wrong with being biased suppose...Or being a moron that can't read the law, or is willing to dismiss the law...

−3

ShadowsNMirrors OP t1_ivh6pzp wrote

I suppose one of the questions you have to ask yourself is, if Judge Michael Cordonnier felt like he was right in not recusing himself, then why didn't he simply disclose the fact that his father was a surgeon at Cox Health and address the issue?

Instead he refused to recuse himself with no explanation. Not what I'd call transparent...

−9

Low_Tourist t1_ivhcw27 wrote

Replying to ShadowsNMirrors (#468,109)

If every judge had to recuse themselves because they have some tangential relationship with someone involved in a case, there'd be no judges.

Are there some that should recuse themselves from certain cases? Absofuckinglutely.

Are you grasping at straws here? YUP.

9

ShadowsNMirrors OP t1_ivheu9m wrote

Replying to Low_Tourist (#468,574)

Here is what make you "not so bright"

Canon 1

A Judge Shall Uphold and Promote the Independence, Integrity and Impartiality of the Judiciary, and Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety.

Rule 2-1.1 Compliance with the Law Rule 2-1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary Rule 2-1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office

RULE 2-1.1 Compliance with the Law

A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULE 2-1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Comment

[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.

[2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the code.

[3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the rule is necessarily cast in general terms.

[4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.

[5] Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and appropriate temperament is impaired.

[6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this code.

RULE 2-1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office

A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

Comment

[1] It is improper for a judge to use or attempt to use his or her position to gain personal advantage or deferential treatment of any kind. For example, it would be improper for a judge to allude to his or her judicial status to gain favorable treatment in encounters with traffic officials. Similarly, a judge must not use judicial letterhead to gain an advantage in conducting his or her personal business.

[2] In addition, the need for every recommendation on official stationery to recite that it is the “personal” act of the judge is questionable. Recommendation letters of the type authorized by judicial codes are reviewed by sophisticated individuals with a sufficient knowledge that references are private, not official acts. References sent to educational institutions, governmental agencies, scholarship committees, and businesses are not likely to be misinterpreted as court acts.

[3] Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by communicating with appointing authorities and screening committees concerning the professional qualifications of a person being considered for judicial office.

[4] Special considerations arise when judges write or contribute to publications of for-profit entities, whether related or unrelated to the law. A judge should not permit anyone associated with the publication of such materials to exploit the judge’s office in a manner that violates this Rule 2-1.3 or other applicable law. In contracts for publication of a judge’s writing, the judge should retain sufficient control over the advertising to avoid such exploitation.

(Adopted Jan. 29, 1998, eff. Jan. 1, 1999. Amended July 20, 2011, eff. Jan. 1, 2012.)

EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF AN IMPROPRIETY.. Just what do you think that means? You think that was written for giggles?

What? Has Kristi called you a moron before? LOL.

−4

VaderTower t1_ivi17y2 wrote

Replying to ShadowsNMirrors (#467,897)

Well as soon as any of us read a document that paints Fulnecky in a positive light, that automatically raises issues of how biased the document is.

Fulnecky has the be the most irritating, negative, and obstructionist lawyer that any person outside of the legal community knows.

10

ShadowsNMirrors OP t1_ivijhyw wrote

Replying to VaderTower (#470,145)

Just because Kristi Fulnecky doesn't care what you think, doesn't make her a bad attorney. Your need for the consideration of your opinion, and her refusal to acknowledge your opinion, is not a negative mark against Kristi Fulnacky.

−6

ShadowsNMirrors OP t1_ivrl612 wrote

Replying to ShartsvilleDestroyer (#467,626)

Samantha Cherry does NOT have the obligation or burden of protecting her son's information under H.I.P.P.A., Cox Health does.....

Sure the Judge did rule against Cox Health once, and against Samantha Cherry FAR more. The FACT that the Missouri Supreme Court Rule on this is that the Judge can not even have the appearance of an impropriety against them, is enough for Judge Michael Cordonnier to have recused him from the case. Aht, Aht.. Let me get that for you smart guy:

>RULE 2-1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
>
>A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

I surmise that this is either an attorney that does not know the law, or does not give a damn about the law..... Either way, he or she is not very smart...

0

ShadowsNMirrors OP t1_ivrobp3 wrote

Replying to ShartsvilleDestroyer (#489,624)

LOL.

I have to get back to work. I only have a set amount of time in my day to talk to children.

I know I am a little harsh and abrasive, and I know you are a moron. But, I still wish you all the best.

And Happy Holidays.

0