The Supreme Court of the United States in Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 503, 73 L. Ed. 2d 172, 102 S. Ct. 2557 (1982) stated, "The very purpose of § 1983 was to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people's federal rights -- to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial." However, Northern District of Florida Judge Robert Hinkle does not comprehend this concept.
When Judge Hinkle has been assigned cases brought by Florida Bar applicants, he has repeatedly misapplied the law to protect the FBBE.
The starting point of the corruption begins with the way new cases are assigned to the 8 different judges in the Northern District. Judge Hinkle personally rigged the case assignment system with his Case Management Administrative Order, which requires that he be assigned 68% of all Tallahassee Division civil cases. Therefore when a Bar applicant seeks federal relief, there is a 68% chance - each time - that his or her case will be assigned to Hinkle. For example, here is what happened with the last 4 cases that have been filed against the FBBE:
In Tripp v. Executive Office of the President, 196 F.R.D. 201, 202 (D.C. 2000), the Court stated, "The fundamental rationale for the general rule requiring random assignment of cases is to ensure greater public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. The rule guarantees fair and equal distribution of cases to all judges, avoids public perception or appearance of favoritism in assignments, and reduces opportunities for judge-shopping." However, as evidenced above, Judge Hinkle personally rigged the case assignment system, and as a result, litigants are deprived of a random selection of the 8 available judges.
Click Here to Return to Our Home Page
