About Us

The information on this website does not offer legal services, does not give legal advice, and does not establish attorney-client relationships with visitors on behalf of itself, any attorney, law firm, individual, or other entity.

AbusiveDiscretion is an independent news organization covering judicial misconduct, in all its forms, to improve the functioning of our courts.

AbusiveDiscretion‘s parent company, Judiciocracy LLC was purchased in April 2024 by an investment group based out of Chicago. (LINK)

our purpose

AbusiveDiscretion is a play on words-well-known in the legal profession. Judges make mistakes. When they do, oftentimes, their mistakes can be overturned by a higher court, generally through an appeal. When an appellate court is called to correct a lower court, the higher court’s review is based on one amongst several standards. Some standards allow a “fresh look” from the reviewing court. However, the standard most vexing to those who know the court made a mistake is “abuse of discretion.” (Sound familiar?) A reviewing court won’t reverse a decision, even if ‘wrong,’ so long as the decision is within a permissible array of options under the circumstances.

Imagine being on the other side of a wrongful decision from our judicial system. The power of the judicial order, by definition, is accompanied by the point of a gun. Standing on principle to seek to undo injustice is often affordable only to the wealthy. Even then, one may not simply disobey a wrongful order without life-changing consequence and risk.[1]. If the those with resources cannot find justice, those without resources face an even more insurmountable task. They lack both the ability to take those risks and a reasonable opportunity to have wrongful orders reversed.

But it is an assortment of imperfect humans who threaten litigants with jail, rob children of a parent, bankrupt, and destroy lives, inadvertently or not. That’s a lot and it happens everyday. How can our publication convince you that judges aren’t perfect? First, we shouldn’t have to.[2]. Second, read our public record-sourced news for an incredible amount of known judicial misconduct pervading our legal system. We caution you that we cannot represent the reporting is even remotely comprehensive. In fact, we know it cannot be. Most judicial misconduct goes unreported, uninvestigated, and undisclosed. Judges often rule on their own cohort behind closed doors. The same judges who rule on your case could be lobbying on behalf of all judges and never get real scrutiny.

AbusiveDiscretion aims to highlight the potential for abuse, first by reporting what we can, then by asking for more transparency from the judicial system.

Regardless of our fascination with judicial misconduct, the position of judicial officer deserves respect. Without a functioning court system, we would be at a loss as a society. Our publication’s purpose is to remind our readers that to hold courts ‘sacrosanct’ without questioning the people under the robes mistakes servitude for respect. Judges are people, they make mistakes, and their mistakes affect our lives.

AbusiveDiscretion seeks to foster respect for the system, not by attacking it, but by holding judicial officers accountable who show not respect but disdain for the system through their actions.


AbusiveDiscretion will cover judicial misconduct as investigated and as part of the public record. Additionally, AbusiveDiscretion will highlight, when appropriate, the most outrageous orders judges enter.

background of our publisher

Edward “Coach” Weinhaus, Esq. is the Managing Partner of legal services firm LegalSolved LLC. LegalSolved offers both legal services and non-legal services, including its former publishing arm, LegalSolved Publishing, now Judiciocracy LLC. Judiciocracy publications also include BlockTribune, DiplomaPrivilege, VowBreakers, and ALABnews.

Coach started his career as an investigative reporter on Capitol Hill more than 30 years before launching Abusive Discretion. In the meantime, he re-engineered the local news landscape founding the nation’s largest online local news operation based on public records.

Aside from running LegalSolved, Coach has been teaching law and entrepreneurship at UCLA Anderson since 2016. In the past, Coach served as faculty at the University of Chicago, Washington University in St. Louis, and Pepperdine University.

judicial safety

Judicial safety is a primary concern for AbusiveDiscretion. AbusiveDiscretion’s publisher has been protecting judges’ safety for more than a decade and will continue to do so. We expose the public to public information about judicial behavior. We believe the frustration of those who resort to violence can be a result of a lack of support in the face of “what’s right” when often “what’s right” is anything but. Just offering a voice can often be the only support some people need to elevate their respect for the system.

We ask that those wronged seek justice not through the sword but through the pen. In short, our job is to ensure the pen is indeed mightier. It’s a lofty goal to which AbusiveDiscretion aspires.

We appreciate your support in holding judicial officers accountable for the purpose of increasing the respect for the judiciary as a whole.


[1]Maness vs. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (1974):

all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly. If a person to whom a court directs an order believes that order is incorrect the remedy is to appeal, but, absent a stay, he must comply promptly with the order pending appeal. Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect. Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189 -190 (1922); Worden v. Searls, 121 U.S. 14 (1887). The orderly and expeditious administration of justice by the courts requires that “an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.” United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947).

419 U.S. at 458-59 (emphasis added).

[2] Assuming one does not inject religious figures into the question, who among us is perfect?