Eduardo C. Robreno

He bends over backward to protect government agencies, conniving at blatant malfeasance on their part.

A lower court judge has issued several decisions replete with factual and legal errors while aware that Judge Robreno would preside over any appeal of his decision. The record was clear in each instance that the lower court judge not only sought to and did nullify facts of record but blatantly and methodically misrepresented facts of record throughout his opinion. The record made clear of the litigant harmed by the trial judge possessed limited resources. In the multiple opinions the trial court judge exhibited absolutely no fear or concern that Judge Robreno while reviewing the misconduct of the lower court judge would pursue action (ethical, disciplinary, reversal) against the trial court judge.

The issuance of an appeal proof "decision" devoid of any factual or legal analysis runs entirely contra to any public expectation of a district court judge. When a judge does so in a disparate balance of power context between the litigants in favor of the litigant yielding the most resources and political power there can be no redress in the legal system. If he behaves like a judge only in high profile cases there is no hope of redress in the legal system. However, there are professionals who find injustice repugnant and will pursue a thoughtful, well documented, investigation and scrutiny of the case, along with a review of the Judge's past decisions, biases, patterns of ruling for his own political convenience while ignoring the law and justice.

In a case where there was clearly documented irrefutable evidence of fraud, Judge Robreno called the parties to a dispositive hearing. Robreno scheduled the hearing after hours on a bitter cold evening in the dead of winter. The female litigant, her counsel, and the big law firm attorneys managed to get by after hours security and navigated their way through the hallways of the darkened courthouse to Robreno's courtroom which was locked. Eventually Robreno's clerk opened the huge majestic door and asked who was present. Palpable fear that press would appear even though courthouse closed? During this horrific charade settlement was raised but never explored. The Judge ruled against the female litigant shortly thereafter. Robreno's decision, an empty opinion that served to nullify/ignore all salient facts of record, was affirmed by the same circuit court judge with the same empty opinion that rubber stamped a previous ruling from Robreno against a female litigant. Horrific.

Slip and fall case with significant, permanent, established damages and liability. Female litigant. Opposition was huge law firm. Robreno was acknowledging validity of the case. Then case took a complete 360 when facts were nullified by Robreno in a "non opinion" at summary judgment. On appeal case found itself before Third Circuit where panel was led by judge who has history of failing to issue decisions in these types of cases involving similar litigants.