Judicial Bias: Dr. Bharani Padmanabhan part II; the courts purposefully ignore an emergency?

Dr. Bharani Padmanabhan filed an emergency petition for an injunction with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) after his initial petition was dismissed without explanation by Justice Gaziano. This emergency petition was critical as it needed resolution before his defamation trial scheduled for June 24th. Despite the urgency and proper filing, the SJC misclassified the petition and delayed action, prompting Dr. Padmanabhan to deliver the brief in person. However, due to a parade, he couldn't reach the courthouse and had to mail the documents instead. The court clerk later informed him that the court would not address his case in time, despite the clear emergency status.

The case revolves around Dr. Padmanabhan's defamation suit against Loretta Cooke, a former state employee, who is being defended by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. This defense by a state entity in a private civil case is unprecedented and has skewed the judicial proceedings in favor of the defendant, introducing significant bias. The involvement of the Attorney General's office has led to judicial favoritism and manipulation of court records, including the splicing out of crucial testimony. This situation highlights the erosion of judicial neutrality and the merging of the executive and judicial branches in Massachusetts.

Dr. Padmanabhan's main argument is that the judicial bias and misconduct in his case are not just personal grievances but represent a broader threat to public justice. The lack of neutrality and the seamless cooperation between the judiciary and the executive branches compromise the integrity of the legal system, setting a dangerous precedent for all citizens.
Why People Should Care
Erosion of Judicial Neutrality: The integrity of the judicial system is compromised when courts fail to remain neutral and independent. Dr. Padmanabhan’s case illustrates how bias can undermine justice, which affects everyone’s right to a fair trial.

Misuse of Public Resources: The involvement of the Attorney General's office in a private defamation suit against state law indicates misuse of taxpayer money and resources, raising concerns about accountability and transparency in government.

Precedent for Future Cases: If such judicial misconduct goes unchallenged, it sets a dangerous precedent where government officials can manipulate legal proceedings to their advantage, jeopardizing the rule of law.

Public Trust in the Legal System: Cases like Dr. Padmanabhan’s erode public confidence in the legal system. Ensuring judicial accountability is crucial for maintaining trust and legitimacy in legal institutions.

Protection of Individual Rights: Dr. Padmanabhan’s struggle underscores the need to protect individual rights against powerful entities that can influence the judicial process. It’s a reminder of the importance of vigilance and advocacy in safeguarding justice for all.

In summary, Dr. Padmanabhan’s case is a critical examination of judicial bias, the misuse of public resources, and the broader implications for the legal system and public trust. It’s a call to action to ensure that justice is served impartially and transparently, protecting the rights and interests of all citizens.

"If a plaintiff says it's an emergency, you have to give it some consideration, some due respect."

"The involvement of the attorney general in this private civil case has skewed it irreparably."

"The court is required to be neutral. Neutral means neutral."

"This can happen to your loved ones next."

"We are supposed to have three separate branches of government here. The executive and the judiciary have glommed together."