As a lawyer, I couldn't resist a quick look at this thread. Here's the bottom line, and this is an indisputable statement of fact: though the girl's action there is disrespectful, the judge did not disclose to her that he is working for a corporation, as all courts are (see the Dunn and Bradstreet website to confirm). The fact that he did not disclose his financial interest in the outcome of her lawsuit is a criminal act, and he will be prosecuted as a result. The BAR association is in the process of being dismantled and all judges, like this one, will need to answer for their crimes.

This judge could be a very nice guy, as many are. However, he is, in fact, knowingly committing absolutely serious criminal acts every time time he colludes to imprison an individual by not disclosing his standing as corporate officer in a matter such as this, whose authority and jurisdication is derived solely via consent of the accused. Now if this judge was a de jure judge of a common law court, then we have an different story entirely. Please consider these words, as they could very well get you out of a jam you'd never expect to be in.