Margaret C. Rodgers

Biased judge who does not care about the US Constitution.

Did judge Margaret Casey Rodgers alter the transcript of the 2006 Kent Hovind case? Has this been researched?

It is my opinion post sentencing that Judge Rogers is biased and rules based on her personal beliefs and opinions.

I have appeared before Judge Rodgers several times in recent years and she appears to have matured as a judge during this period. Initially, both her comments from the bench and her written opinions reflected a Queen of Hearts temperament - "off with their heads!" More recently, her temperament has been more balanced and the quality of her opinions has improved. She is no legal scholar, but at least her most recent opinions reflected that she understood the legal issues and at least some of the arguments of counsel. She remains a bit impulsive and prone to outbursts, both in per son and on paper. She is a bit abrupt in her courtroom manner. She is exceedingly slow in ruling on non-emergency motions. In order to get her to rule on a dispositive motion of nationwide importance, we were forced to file for a writ of mandamus from the Eleventh Circui.

She is too quick to give too severe sentences for contempt of court and other questionable offences. She refused to recuse herself from the 2015 retrial of Kent Hovind in spite of bias against him.

I've written two federal lawsuits, pro se, one of which suceeded. I've examined the transcript of one criminal case overseen by Rodgers. It was very troubling. The defense somehow managed to file an appeal prematurely, which the clerk interpreted as an interlocutory appeal. In court, the defense then asked to have the "interlocutory" appeal regarded as a properly filed appeal. Rodgers told the defense that they would have to research case law to find out if she, Rodgers, could do that. Strange.... Rodgers also repeatedly ignored citations of clearly established case law.

She is doing some good things in her capacity as a federal judge regarding criminal rehabilitation efforts. The problem is she was unqualified to be a federal judge when appointed though she has mellowed and matured some since. She reasons to conclusions and has for example a reputation of ignoring Florida bad faith law in favor of her view of what the law should be.

Judge Rodgers appears to be a results-oriented pro-business judge. She freely ignores binding precedent in order to reach her desired result. Her legal reasoning, such as it is, tends to be an afterthought to justify her policy-oriented decision. She displays little intellectual integrity and is highly predictable in her rulings.

Lacks familiarity with cases before her. Does not read or understand filings that attorneys have labored over. Poor work ethic, not much sense of impartiality.

Was very slow to rule on or review motions. I was worried that this meant she was too busy and would want to get rid of cases to lighten her load. Sadly it seems I was right as my case was dismissed with sketch logic that did not add up at all. It is not consistent with case law and will not doubt be quoted time and time again in the near future by lawyers in similar cases. She twisted the law as far as she could to lighten her load.

Although she came to the bench without a great deal of trial experience she has worked hard at learning the job and has significantly improved. Industrious and fair, she is a good judge now and will be very good as she gathers experience.