Consuelo B. Marshall

How does a case filed within the Eastern Riverside Division land up in the Western Los Angeles Division by "MISTAKE" is >UNKNOWN<

Honorable District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall needs to recuse herself [Redacted by Ed.]. Sean Simon Roseman, the Plaintiff, is a Pro Se litigant, a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) and immigrant from a foreign country, a minority of Jewish descent, a former victim of violent crime according to CalVCB, and a victim of Intersectional Discrimination, intimidation, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination of employment after hire, and Antisemitism in this race related employment discrimination complaint. Honorable District Judge Consuelo B Marshall refuses to correct the venue of my case to the Eastern Division in Riverside where: ~ I correctly filed and designated the venue in the Eastern Division ~ The discrimination occured in the Eastern Division ~ Where I live in the Eastern Division ~ All the witnesses and Managers who discriminated against me live in the Eastern Division After almost three months of wasted time denying two motions for change of venue, this judge continues to hold onto a case that shouldn't be in the Western Division. She has filed denials that conflict law, violate her oath as a judge, and violate the rules of professional conduct. How my Eastern Division case actually landed up in the Western Division is unknown. Now as a pro Se litigant and victim I have to file a Writ of Mandamus, submit complaints to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and file a notarized Affidavit Motion to Recuse. She is biased against me as well as has an interest in her portfolio of Walmart stock, the same defendant in my case against Walmart. This judge should step down from her post. No judge is above the law they are required to keep according to their oaths provided in judgeship. Here is a prime example of the moral turpitude sweeping across this country tearing it apart at the seams. A moral turpitude considered inherently depraved, immoral, or shocking to the public conscience. The same depravity used in witness impeachment that violate social norms

Judge Marshall has been around for a LONG time (appointed by President Carter), so she is probably in the twilight of her career at this point. Her temperament is about as good as they come, but (as many posters noted) she takes an extremely long period of time to issue rulings. But, once you get a scheduling conference in her courtroom, watch out...she will set trial on a "rocket docket" style schedule, whether you have a planned vacation or not. If your case gets past dispositive motion, make sure you are ready to go with discovery because your trial will be coming quickly! Her hearings are often very useful, and she will take time to make sure both sides are heard, and to sift through the BS. Her rulings in may cases before her were well reasoned, even when they went against my client. Like many judges who have been on the bench for a while, she is not timid to do the right thing (out of fear of being overturned), so make sure the law and the facts support your position if you get assigned to her courtroom.

Will not follow precedent. Not particularly able to follow a logical argument. Makes up the law she follows when she tries to make it look like she is following precedent.Tries to intimidate with a threat of Rule 11 sanctions. Permits sandbagging in law and motion work. But really, what do you expect from a LASC commissioner/juvenile court referee?

Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier

Should step down. The law and the world has passed her by. Time to retire. Simply ignores evidence submitted. Decisions reflect being cognitively aware of only items/facts she understands and/or agrees with. Avoid if possible.

overall JUDGE MARSHALL is one of the fairest, intelligent jurist on the bench and should be considered for a higher position judicially.

Takes forever to rule and misstates -- or simply makes up the law. Civil defendants get a pass and she will ignore settled rules to dismiss a case perhaps to reduce her calender. In state court, she would not have a career as a trial judge as most lawyers would "paper her." She creates work for the Ninth Circuit that a more dedicated jurist would not.

Absolutey horrible. One of the most liberally biased judges sitting on the bench. Does not hide her prejudices well. Does not follow precedent and writes horrible opinions which demonstrate a lack of legal analysis and understanding. Treats lawsyers and litigants disparately based on her political affiliation.

Judge Marshall seemed poorly prepared for a legally challenging civil case. To be fair, she took the case over from another judge at the very end, but ultimately wrote confusing rulings that were internally inconsistent.

Judge Marshall is a genuinely decent person who always does the right thing. She sometimes is criticized for permitting too much oral argument or taking too long to make rulings, but it's because it's so important to her to get it right and to do justice. She is one of the most honest, respectful, decent judges in the country, and, more than anything, a truly decent human being.

Slow to rule and chambers is non-responsive. Lenient to civil defendants. Eventually will make the correct ruling, but does not stop any argument.