Username:

Password:

My Reforms:

This section will allow users to easily coordinate activities based on shared views (as opposed to direct personal contacts). Activity on areas like the discussion boards is needed to provide the data required to establish these connections (therefore this area won't be developed until nearly last). Grassroots movements will be supercharged once this section is active.
New Topic:

Clicking here opens a form to create a new topic.
Login:

User ID module is not active yet.
Reply:

Clicking here opens a form to reply to the post above.

Magnifying Glass Icon [View]

This is a hover link. While your mouse is over this link, you will be able to see (at least some of) the information contained in the "Open" link. When the open link contains a great deal of information, rehovering over this link and moving away will close the "Open" section - preventing the need to scroll all the way to the top or bottom of that section.

Open Book Icon [Open]

Clicking here opens a section that contains replies (or other information) that relate to this post.
Suggestion:

Suggestions are a specialty reply. They are specifically geared towards improving a post: The post submitter may edit his post to reflect suggestions. The other option is crowdsourced editing of a post (votes affect how the original post is displayed - with a note to indicate that it has been crowdedited & a link to the original post.

(click to open)
Dispute:

A dispute is a negative observation about a post. Generally, a dispute will challenge some portion of a post and offer a "corrected" view: The post submitter may edit his post to reflect disputes. The other option is crowdsourced editing of a post (votes affect how the original post is displayed - with a note to indicate that it has been crowdedited & a link to the original post

(click to open)

New Topic

Title:

Posted by:

Make a comment:






Template:
Basic
Scientific Method
Innovation Process
DMADV
DMAIC

Options:
Advanced (full)
Other Comments
Spam Area




Keywords (optional):


close

N.C. District 22A - Judge Christine Underwood - Issues/Complaints


Complaints related to Christine Underwood - District Court Judge of N.C. District 22A [Alexander and Iredell counties]

(704) 832-6612


This forum is designed to encourage judicial reform. Justice is a right of all citizens not just a privilege of the wealthy and powerful.

Please feel free to post any comments that reveal defects in judgment or abuse of power related to the commission listed above. We also encourage posting issues related to unjust laws (keep in mind that there is a difference between a bad law and a bad judge).

If you are bursting with emotion and feel a need to rant/rave, please feel free (add "RANT" as the first line of your post).

Be aware that most judges have a difficult job and they do well in most instances -- if a mistake was made, the best method of preventing future mistakes of a similar nature is adopting a calm, long-term resolution to correct the error and applying pressure on the judicial system through legitimate sources.

Also, be aware that any posts that are libelous or harassing are prohibited on this site - keep in mind during any rants that describing your feelings about injustices is fine, however, allegations of wrongdoing should be supported by facts.


TIPS:
-Obtain advise from an attorney regarding your legal options.
-Wait a few days before making public allegations.
-Avoid letting your passion make you sound crazed.
-Carefully list all the injustices that you feel occurred.
-Separate the facts from the feelings.
-Research and gather support for your facts and feelings.
-Determine which points are most important to you.
-Think about which points could be most effective at creating reform (and realize that these are not necessarily the same points that are most important to you).
-Pursue your legal options to the fullest extent reasonable.
-Complain to the Judicial Standards Commission (if appropriate) -- it appears unlikely that the Commission will take any action (this forum was created after two complaints were dismissed without further investigation that alleged a total of approximately 64 violations of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct by a Chief District Court Judge in NC).
-The judiciary hates public attention drawn to its flaws.
-Make your feelings or arguments known to the local media - call an appropriate news radio or talk television program with your issues - write a letter to the editor to a local newspaper.
-Sticking to your talking points and using supported arguments will greatly increase the chances of affecting judicial behavior.
-Feel free to ask for help writing a complaint or letter to the editor.
-Don't give up until you feel satisfied that you have made a difference.

RESOURCES:
-NC Radio (by city)

-Links to N.C. Laws, Rules and other resources
-Legal Aid of N.C. (possibly free legal aid for individuals who can't afford an attorney)
-Judicial Standards Commission (complaints against NC judges)
-North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct (right-click to save pdf)

Pro Se RESOURCES (for representing yourself):
-North Carolina General Statutes
-NC Civil Procedure
-NC Rules of Civil Procedure
-Local Court Rules (select your county)
-Appellate Rules (right-click to save pdf)

*please post the county/address/number of the courthouse/courtroom where the case was heard.
**posts commending the legal system and judicial action are also welcome.




hide/show Comments


Posted by:

Make a comment:






 Relation to topic:
  Central
  Largely related
  Somewhat related
  Other - Humorous, etc.

 This post contains:
  Fact
  Opinion
  Theory
  Other
 (Check all that apply)



Keywords (optional):


No comments





hide/show Other Comments


Posted by:

Make a comment:






 Relation to topic:
  Central
  Largely related
  Somewhat related
  Other - Humorous, etc.

 This post contains:
  Fact
  Opinion
  Theory
  Other
 (Check all that apply)



Keywords (optional):


No comments





hide/show Spam and Offensive Comments


Posted by:

Make a comment:






 Relation to topic:
  Central
  Largely related
  Somewhat related
  Other - Humorous, etc.

 This post contains:
  Fact
  Opinion
  Theory
  Other
 (Check all that apply)



Keywords (optional):





Posted by: Laura Erckman on 04-22-2013

Case 02CVD1282 heard in Statesville courthouse January 2010

Judge Christine Underwood issued her findings in the case on May 27,2010 over 3 months after the hearing.

Her findings are based upon multiple inaccurate statements and include untrue statements made by the Judge for which she had no basis of fact.

Examples are:

The inaccurate statements made by the plaintiff about her income were easily identifiable by a simple review of the plaintiff's paystub. The plaintiff claimed to have only 20 paychecks a year when she actually had 26. Simple division tells you this and her employer confirmed it for us. The plantiff's claim to having $1723.33 net monthly income, or $20,676 annually, accepted by Judge Underwood, from a $58,000 paycheck is a blatantly unreasonable statement. No one is in a 64.35% tax bracket. She claimed only 1/3 of her income as net pay and Judge Underwood accepted that.

Judge Underwood stated that "the defendant regularly pays his personal legal expenses out of the business account". This is an untrue statement and Judge Underwood is totally uncapable of producing one check made out to an attorney from the business account because there aren't any.

Judge Underwood also states that the "defendant is not accurately reporting his income on his tax returns and is, instead, hiding income." Accountants, with full access to the books of the company, prepare the defendant's tax returns. Three different accountants have done the company's tax returns, all reflecting similar income. Judge Underwood's statement is a misguided opinion for which she had no basis of fact.

These are just a few examples of many problems with the decision.

Because the decision took so long to be issued, Judge Underwood offered us the opportunity to offer comments on her findings before she filed them. We pointed out the impossibility of the plantiff's income statements being accurate and well as the untrue statements about the defendant. Everything we provided to her as proof was ignored.

Judge Underwood's decision was based upon the Plaintiff's falsely reported income and assets (although she admitted to $600,000) and the refusal of the court to accept that the 2008 bank crisis seriously reduced the defendant's income. As a result, the defendant was ordered to pay alimony he has no financial ability to pay.

Four children and four grandchildren have little or no access to their parent or grandparent because of a court decison based upon false statements resulting in a totally unjust court decision.

<< o >> Rate this post + move -

View Reply Open    View Suggest Open    View Dispute Open    View Source Open    Not Spam


Posted by:



 Relation to topic:
  Central
  Largely related
  Somewhat related
  Other - Humorous, etc.

 This post contains:
  Fact
  Opinion
  Theory
  Other

Make a comment:





Keywords (optional):