The Impartiality And Independence Of Judge Jimbo Kern

In this decision, the court will examine the impartiality and independence of judge Jimbo Kern. Judge J. Kern recently ruled on the case of Bebe v. Sharon and Randy. Bebe has reasonable believes that judge J. Kern has made based the outcome of the case on factors other than the facts and law.

There are two types of jurisdictions, in personam and in rem jurisdiction. In personam jurisdiction means that the decision of the judge is binding to a person while in rem jurisdiction. As the last judgement is between the owners of the fabulous inn and Bebe, it is binding upon people and therefore there is an in personam jurisdiction applicable.

The applicable legal provisions can be found in UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (PTCP),

Kern has in the ruling of the case. It is known to the court that J. Kern holds a small number of shares of the Fabulous Inn property. This gives him financial disadvantage if he would rule in favor of Bebe as it would disadvantage the Fabulous Inn, where the incident happened.

The court has the obligation to be impartial, if there is reasonable ground to doubt a person’s impartiality, the decisional authority cannot participate in the process. Mainly, principle one states that ‘there should be a fair and effective procedure for addressing contentions of judicial bias’. Therefore there must be a fair procedure to see if the court’s decisional authorities are impartial or not. Impartiality could be a measured in a state of mind or even an attitude.

Judge J. Kern is a family member of Randy, his cousin. This creates a possibility to doubt impartiality and a possible bias. Not only that, the court also recognizes that J. Kern stated that Bebe and her friend Wendy should have stayed in France, addressing Bebe in a non-professional

Health Services Acquisition Corp,. In this case, the judge would financially benefit if he ruled in favor of one of the parties. The judge was on the board of trustees of Loyola University, one of the involved parties. As this is an American case, it was ruled that 28 U.S.C was applicable, article 445(a): any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States of America shall disqualify himself in any proceedings in which impartiality might be questioned.

The similarity is between the judges and their personal interest. As where the judge in the case mentioned above was on the board of trustees, Mr. J. Kern holds shares of the Fabulous Inn. In the case, the judge was required to disqualify himself in any proceedings in which impartiality might be questioned. It did not have to be proved, just questioned.

Dutch legislation, NNVR-rechtcode supports the judicial independence, making it not a privilege enjoyed by judges but a citizen’s fundamental right under the rule of law in a democratic state. A judge must be able to make his judgement based on his own judgement, assessment of the law and facts, without inappropriate influence and that a judge should not accept any representative position because he is aware that it could create the appearance of