CORRUPT JUDGES


 

Revolting Judges

by Dr. Carl Bernofsky

Fearful of a growing backlash from the public against arbitrary, prejudiced, and even malicious judgments that are protected by judicial immunity, judges have banded together under government sponsorship to devise means of defending themselves from aggrieved and increasingly militant pro-se litigants.

 
Continuing Education Credit Prejudices Judges
JUNE WISNIEWSKI
     My name is June Wisniewski. I live in Reno, Nevada, about two miles from the National Judicial College, the non-profit organization that trains judges, and grew up in Linden, New Jersey.
     Here is John Boyle, the judge who went on Fox News twice and talked about my case,In the Matter of Joseph Wisniewski, Sr., Docket No. J-1733. Judge John Boyle called me a quack, a loser, and a mental case, but admitted that I had money due and owning me in a civil case.
     On another videotape, Boyle stated that his father introduced him to the Mafia when he was twelve years old, and made sure that he did not have his picture taken with any Mafia leader. Boyle went into detail on how money was confiscated from poor persons, and stated that the Mafia was all about the money, and not about the fellowship.
     Judge John M. Boyle accepted a bribe in the case, In the Matter of the Estate of Joseph Wisniewski, Sr., and fradulently concealed over $140,000 improperly paid to the attorney, Walter A. Kipp, of Rutherford, NJ. Boyle arranged with the Administrator of the estate, Joe Wisniewski, Jr., of McLean, VA, and his attorney, Kipp, to substitute $250,000 worth of bogus, bankrupt, junk bonds that were not part of my father’s estate instead of cash or actual assets. The State of New Jersey supports the fradulent concealment of estate assets in selected cases.http://judicialterrorism.blogspot.com/2009/07/here-is-judge-who-went-on-fox-news.html
      This book, along with Dealing With Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff, published in 1997 by NCSC, was developed from an Institute for Course Management (ICM) course on dealing with common law courts, held in Scottsdale, Arizona, February 5-7, 1997.

     The curriculum and manuals for this course were prepared with a grant from the State Justice Institute: Award No. SJI-96-02B-B-159, “The Rise of Common Law Courts in the United States: An Examination of the Movement, the Potential Impact on the Judiciary, and How the States Could Respond.

     The State Justice Institute (SJI) is a non-profit, 501C(3) corporation that was started in 1986 and funded by Congress to develop courses and training manuals for state courts and judicial training organizations.This course and training manuals were developed by a group of 27 judges, court clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors in Arizona who examined the history and procedures of the Common Law Court Movement (CLC) and created the training curriculum and responses that courts, judges, and court administrators can use when dealing with common law courts in their own jurisdictions.

     My contact at the conference said that one of its goals was to identify ways the courts can make preemptive strikes against the CLC movement.Some of the keynote speakers who helped produce the CLC course in Arizona were Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of Columbus, Ohio, T.C. Brown of Columbus, Ohio (a reporter for theCleveland Plain Dealer), and Jonathan Mozzochi, Executive Director of the Coalition for Human Dignity in Seattle, Washington. Mozzochi, who distributed Guns and Gavels, a publication of the Coalition, was listed as “a nationally recognized expert on militias and hate group activity.”

     The Coalition is like a west coast version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).I originally found out about this course by watching a videotaped session of the 1996 combined conference of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), held in Nashville, Tennessee in the summer of 1996 and called “Impact of the Common Law Court Movement on the Courts.”

     More than 50 state supreme court justices and state court administrators attended the Tennessee conference. The CLC session was taped with a grant from SJI. Keynote speakers were Michael Reynolds, senior intelligence analyst for the SPLC, and James Reynolds, chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, U.S. Department of Justice.

     The panel discussion included Susan Hansen, senior reporter with American Lawyer, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer (past president of CCJ), Utah Supreme Court Justice Michael Zimmerman, and Judges Jeffrey Langton and Gregory Mohr from Montana.

     The taped session was more than three hours long. At the end of the session, one of the speakers mentioned that there was funding for additional CLC conferences. I immediately called ICM, located at NCSC in Virginia, and asked about the additional CLC conferences. My contact told me that a Scottsdale conference was going to take place in about three days. Since those two conferences, there have been additional conferences sponsored by SJI with other organizations.

     SJI sponsored a conference with the American Judicature Society in Scottsdale, Arizona in November, 1999 that was closed to the public and the press. There will also be an ICM course in Orlando, Florida on February 5-7, 2001 called “Increasing Access to Justice for pro-se Litigants,” with that organization’s perception of what “access” means.

     “Constitutionalists in Court” was held in the St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota area in the summer of 2000 by the National Judicial College (NJC) of Reno, Nevada, and the same course was held again November 13-14, 2000, also at NJC in Reno. This course discusses the history of protest movements affecting the judiciary, identifies typical challenges and ways to handle them, anticipates courtroom security needs, and plans solutions and strategies.

     NJC, together with the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), conducted a survey, developed material for their courses from SJI materials and grants, and published a brief report called “Right-Wing Extremist Challenges to the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Court” in 1998.

     This course and report contains a preemptive plan against pro-se litigants and others who may disagree with the court, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Native American protest groups, religious organizations, and anyone else who may take issue with a court decision. The information from NJC is so controversial that NJC has banned its course and conference materials from the public, but their library and the SJI repository is open to the public.

     I originally started researching judicial training organizations in 1996 after I was denied an inheritance by the New Jersey court system when my parents died and was also denied entrance to a conference and course materials at NJC in May, 1996, called “The National Conference on the Media and the Courts: Working Together to Serve the American People.”

     The media conference was closed to the public. Only one New Jersey judge, Martin Kravarick, attended that conference. Judge Kravarick was elected president of the American Judges Association (AJA), a judge’s organization under NCSC. AJA publishes a quarterly journal called Court Review, available in your local law library, by subscription, or through interlibrary loan.

     I first found out about the judicial movement against pro-se litigants and the CLC movement by reading Kravarick’s “President’s Message” in the Fall, 1996 issue of Court Review. I called Judge Kravarick for more information on what the CLC movement was all about, and he gave me some additional contact information. I called Mike Reynolds of SPLC, and he told me there were four conference proceedings and that the conference was taped.

      I waited over three months to get a copy of the tape, “Impact of the Common Law Movement on the Courts.” That tape is available through interlibrary loan from NCSC along with the training manuals mentioned above.Each state has an SJI repository for all publications put out by the organizations they have funded. For example, the repository in Nevada is at NJC in Reno.

     In New Jersey, the SJI repository is at the New Jersey State Library in Trenton. You can check out these training manuals with a New Jersey library card. You can also find out where your SJI repository is by looking it up on the Internet at http://www.statejustice.org, by calling SJI at 703-684-6100, or by writing to the State Justice Institute, 1650 King street, Alexandria, VA 22314.SJI is funded by Congress with your tax dollars.

     If you don’t like the courses and materials they are funding, you can write to your senator or congressman, or directly to SJI and ask them to stop funding these materials. SJI gets very few letters from the public, and I’m sure they would love to hear from you. When you get to their Web site, read and download the newsletters. Most of their new grants are in their newsletters.The National Center for State Courts is an umbrella organization for several judges’ organizations such as the National College of Probate judges (NCPJ), AJA, CCJ, COSCA, ICM and others.

      I have been a member of NCPJ since 1996 and have attended four judges’ conferences. The most controversial and harmful material against the public is coming from NJC and NCSC materials, two agencies that compete with each other for SJI and federal government funding.In the training manuals mentioned above, there are two sections in each book where the writers advise judges and court personnel such as court clerks and guards on how to handle pro-se litigants using a step-by-step process. The writers of these manuals reveal a court that is biased and has a dangerous point of view about justice and equal access in the court system.

Copyright © 2001 June Wisniewski

The Author:  June Wisniewski is a legal researcher and journalist in Reno, Nevada, and can be reached at renojune@judicialterrorism.com.  She has written a number of articles on judicial subjects and is author of the book, The Coffin Chasers: An Aggrieved Litigant’s Journey Through the Corrupt World of Probate The source of this article is the January 5, 2001 issue of the Idaho Observer (http://proliberty.com/observer/20010105.htm)

The text has been modified by reformating and other nonconsequential editing and is noted as such at the request of the author.  The subject matter is the basis of another book by Wisniewski, Unequal Justice: The Inside Story of the National Judicial College.Note 1:  The vulnerability of pro se’s to the hostility of judges is exemplified by the fate of Elena Sassower in 2004.  See also: Sherman Skolnick’s Big Court Fix.

Note 2:  In 2006, the American Bar Association issued a manual, Countering the Critics; Q&E Guide [PDF], that instructs judges on how to respond to complaints about the lack of accountability and other “hot-button” issues they are likely encounter from critics of the American court system.

Note 3:  On March 11, 2008 the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a new set of rules for processing misconduct complaints against federal judges [PDF].  This document also contains instructions for filing complaints against judges.

Hellman, Arthur D., Proposed Amendments to the Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules: Comments and Suggestions (January 23, 2015).

Hearing Before the Judicial Conference of the United States — Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, October 30, 2014; U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-10. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2554596

Proposed Amendments to the Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules: Comments and Suggestions


Arthur D. Hell man


University of Pittsburgh

January 23, 2015

Hearing Before the Judicial Conference of the United States — Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, October 30, 2014
U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-10
Abstract:     

     In 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States – the administrative policy-making body of the federal judiciary – approved a revised set of rules for handling complaints of misconduct or disability on the part of federal judges. Moving away from the decentralizing approach of the pre-2008 Illustrative Rules, the new rules were made binding on all of the federal judicial circuits.
     On September 2, 2014, the Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability (Conduct Committee) issued a set of draft amendments to the Rules. The announcement invited comments on the proposed amendments. This statement was submitted in response to that invitation. The statement is in four parts. Part I provides some background. Part II discusses the policy changes proposed by the Committee. Part III addresses the special problems raised by “high-visibility” complaints. Part IV suggests some additional modest revisions in the Rules and flags issues that warrant the Committee’s attention in the future.

     Most of the amendments in the published draft involve clarification or emphasis. But I have identified six revisions that do reflect changes of policy from the 2008 Rules. Five of the six reflect sound policy; they will serve to enhance transparency and strengthen procedural regularity. However, one proposed revision – an amendment that would allow tie votes in the Conduct Committee on petitions for review – is unwise. I urge the Committee to reconsider it.

     Part IV addresses a variety of issues raised by the proposed draft and the Rules as originally adopted. These include: the chief judge’s obligation to “identify” a complaint based on public reports suggesting that a judge may have engaged in misconduct; judicial council authority to impose sanctions on complainants who abuse the process; disqualification of judges from proceedings under the 1980 Act; and making the Rules more user-friendly. The most detailed discussion involves two issues raised by the misconduct complaint against former District Judge Richard Cebull of Montana: judicial-council authority to conclude a proceeding and disclosure of judicial-council orders that have been vacated or modified.

Click on   http://ssrn.com/abstract=2554596

Keywords: Federal Judicial Misconduct Statutes, Breyer Committee Report, Judicial Conduct, Judicial Misconduct, Federal Judges, Judicial Ethics, National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal, Rulemaking, United States Code Chapter 16, Reform, Judicial System, Federal Courts, Judicial Discipline

 

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.

Introduction
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That are Consistent With the Obligations of Judicial Office
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity
Compliance with the Code of Conduct
Applicable Date of Compliance

Introduction

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was initially adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973, and was known as the “Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges.”

See: JCUS-APR 73, pp. 9-11. Since then, the Judicial Conference has made the following changes to the Code:

  • March 1987: deleted the word “Judicial” from the name of the Code;
  • September 1992: adopted substantial revisions to the Code;
  • March 1996: revised part C of the Compliance section, immediately following the Code;
  • September 1996: revised Canons 3C(3)(a) and 5C(4);
  • September 1999: revised Canon 3C(1)(c);
  • September 2000: clarified the Compliance section;
  • March 2009: adopted substantial revisions to the Code.
  • March 2014: revised part C of the Compliance section, which appears below, immediately following the Code. 

     This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of      Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges.

     Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section.

     The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.

The Judicial Conference has authorized its Committee on Codes of Conduct to render advisory opinions about this Code only when requested by a judge to whom this Code applies.

     Requests for opinions and other questions concerning this Code and its applicability should be addressed to the Chair of the Committee on Codes of Conduct by email or as follows:

Chair, Committee on Codes of Conduct
c/o General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544
202-502-1100

Procedural questions may be addressed to:

Office of the General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544
202-502-1100

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

     An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

COMMENTARY

     Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges.

     The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.

The Canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law, and in the context of all relevant circumstances.

     The Code is to be construed so it does not impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

     The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and nominees for judicial office.

     It may also provide standards of conduct for application in proceedings under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351-364).

     Not every violation of the Code should lead to disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline, should be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.

      Many of the restrictions in the Code are necessarily cast in general terms, and judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation. Furthermore, the Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Finally, the Code is not intended to be used for tactical advantage.

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A)      Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B)      Outside Influence.

     A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.

     A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

     A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

(C)      Nondiscriminatory Membership.

     A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A.

     An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct.

     A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

     Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code.

     Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

Canon 2B.  Testimony as a character witness injects the prestige of the judicial office into the proceeding in which the judge testifies and may be perceived as an official testimonial.

     A judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness except in unusual circumstances when the demands of justice require.

     This Canon does not create a privilege against testifying in response to an official summons.

     A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.

      For example, a judge should not use the judge’s judicial position or title to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the judge’s family.

     In contracts for publication of a judge’s writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge’s office.

     A judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office.

     A judge should not initiate communications to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide information to such persons in response to a formal request.

      Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees seeking names for consideration and by responding to official inquiries concerning a person being considered for a judgeship.

Canon 2C. Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s impartiality is impaired.

      Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive.

     The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. See New York State Club Ass’n. Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988); Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984).

     Other relevant factors include the size and nature of the organization and the diversity of persons in the locale who might reasonably be considered potential members.

      Thus the mere absence of diverse membership does not by itself demonstrate a violation unless reasonable persons with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances would expect that the membership would be diverse in the absence of invidious discrimination.

     Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.

     Although Canon 2C relates only to membership in organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin, a judge’s membership in an organization that engages in any invidiously discriminatory membership practices prohibited by applicable law violates Canons 2 and 2A and gives the appearance of impropriety.

     In addition, it would be a violation of Canons 2 and 2A for a judge to arrange a meeting at a club that the judge knows practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin in its membership or other policies, or for the judge to use such a club regularly.

      Moreover, public manifestation by a judge of the judge’s knowing approval of invidious discrimination on any basis gives the appearance of impropriety under Canon 2 and diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Canon 2A.

      When a judge determines that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination that would preclude membership under Canon 2C or under Canons 2 and 2A, the judge is permitted, in lieu of resigning, to make immediate and continuous efforts to have the organization discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices.

     If the organization fails to discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices as promptly as possible (and in all events within two years of the judge’s first learning of the practices), the judge should resign immediately from the organization.

Canon 3:      A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently

     The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. In performing the duties prescribed by law, the judge should adhere to the following standards:

(A)      Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1)      A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(2)      A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.

(3)      A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.

     A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.

(4)     A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.

     Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers.

     If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested.

A judge may:

     (a)      initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications as authorized by law;

     (b)      when circumstances require it, permit ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, but only if the ex parte communication does not address substantive matters and the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication;

     (c)       obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law, but only after giving advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice and affording the parties reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received; or

     (d)      with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their counsel in an effort to mediate or settle pending matters.

(5)       A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.

(6)      A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.

     A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control.

      The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.

(B)      Administrative Responsibilities.

(1)      A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court personnel.

(2)      A judge should not direct court personnel to engage in conduct on the judge’s behalf or as the judge’s representative when that conduct would contravene the Code if undertaken by the judge.

(3)      A judge should exercise the power of appointment fairly and only on the basis of merit, avoiding unnecessary appointments, nepotism, and favoritism. A judge should not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.

(4)      A judge with supervisory authority over other judges should take reasonable measures to ensure that they perform their duties timely and effectively.

(5)      A judge should take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code or a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.

(C)      Disqualification.

(1)      A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

     (a)      the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

     (b)      the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;

     (c)      the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;

     (d)      the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

           (i)      a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

           (ii)      acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

          (iii)      known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or

          (iv)      to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;

     (e)     the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.

(2)      A judge should keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial interests of the judge’s spouse and minor children residing in the judge’s household.

(3)      For the purposes of this section:

     (a)       the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system; the following relatives are within the third degree of relationship: parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great grandparent, great grandchild, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, niece, and nephew; the listed relatives include whole and half blood relatives and most step relatives;

     (b) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(c) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

          ( i)      ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;

           (ii)      an office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

          (iii)      the proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

          (iv)      ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities;

     (d)      “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation.

(4)      Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Canon, if a judge would be disqualified because of a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the judge (or the judge’s spouse or minor child) divests the interest that provides the grounds for disqualification.

(D) Remittal of Disqualification.

     Instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, a judge disqualified by Canon 3C(1) may, except in the circumstances specifically set out in subsections (a) through (e), disclose on the record the basis of disqualification.

     The judge may participate in the proceeding if, after that disclosure, the parties and their lawyers have an opportunity to confer outside the presence of the judge, all agree in writing or on the record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate.

The agreement should be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

COMMENTARY

Canon 3A(3).

     The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court.

      Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.

     The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge’s activities, including the discharge of the judge’s adjudicative and administrative responsibilities.

     The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.

Canon 3A(4).

     The restriction on ex parte communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and others who are not participants in the proceeding.

     A judge may consult with other judges or with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities.

      A judge should make reasonable efforts to ensure that law clerks and other court personnel comply with this provision.

     A judge may encourage and seek to facilitate settlement but should not act in a manner that coerces any party into surrendering the right to have the controversy resolved by the courts.

Canon 3A(5).    

      In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay.

     A judge should monitor and supervise cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.

     Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.

Canon 3A(6).      

     The admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete.

     If the public comment involves a case from the judge’s own court, the judge should take particular care so that the comment does not denigrate public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, which would violate Canon 2A.

     A judge may comment publicly on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, but not on mandamus proceedings when the judge is a litigant in an official capacity (but the judge may respond in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 21(b)).https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_21 (Rule 21 (b))

Canon 3B(3).      

     A judge’s appointees include assigned counsel, officials such as referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, guardians, and personnel such as law clerks, secretaries, and judicial assistants. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by this subsection.

Canon 3B(5).   

      Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer, other direct action if available, reporting the conduct to the appropriate authorities, or, when the judge believes that a judge’s or lawyer’s conduct is caused by drugs, alcohol, or a medical condition, making a confidential referral to an assistance program.

     Appropriate action may also include responding to a subpoena to testify or otherwise participating in judicial or lawyer disciplinary proceedings; a judge should be candid and honest with disciplinary authorities.

Canon 3C.

     Recusal considerations applicable to a judge’s spouse should also be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 3C(1)(c).

      In a criminal proceeding, a victim entitled to restitution is not, within the meaning of this Canon, a party to the proceeding or the subject matter in controversy.

      A judge who has a financial interest in the victim of a crime is not required by Canon 3C(1)(c) to disqualify from the criminal proceeding, but the judge must do so if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C(1) or if the judge has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii).

Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii).

     The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge.

     However, if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 3C(1), or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be “substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), the judge’s disqualification is required.

Canon 4:      A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities that are Consistent with the Obligations of Judicial Office 

     A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects.

      However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below.

(A)      Law-related Activities.

(1)      Speaking, Writing, and Teaching.

     A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice

(2)      Consultation.   

       A judge may consult with or appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official:

     (a)     on matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;

     (b)     to the extent that it would generally be perceived that a judge’s judicial experience provides special expertise in the area; or

     (c)     when the judge is acting pro se in a matter involving the judge or the judge’s interest.

(3)      Organizations.

     A judge may participate in and serve as a member, officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds.

      A judge may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies about projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

(4)      Arbitration and Mediation.

      A judge should not act as an arbitrator or mediator or otherwise perform judicial functions apart from the judge’s official duties unless expressly authorized by law.

(5)      Practice of Law.

     A judge should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum.

     A judge may, however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family.

(B)      Civic and Charitable ActivitiesA judge may participate in and serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organization, subject to the following limitations:

(1)     A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will either be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.

(2)     A judge should not give investment advice to such an organization but may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it has the responsibility for approving investment decisions.

(C)      Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of the judge’s family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.

(D)     Financial Activities.

(1)       A judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity, but should refrain from financial and business dealings that exploit the judicial position or involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.

(2)      A judge may serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of a business only if the business is closely held and controlled by members of the judge’s family. For this purpose, “members of the judge’s family” means persons related to the judge or the judge’s spouse within the third degree of relationship as defined in Canon 3C(3)(a), any other relative with whom the judge or the judge’s spouse maintains a close familial relationship, and the spouse of any of the foregoing.

(3)      As soon as the judge can do so without serious financial detriment, the judge should divest investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification.

(4)      A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations.

     A judge should endeavor to prevent any member of the judge’s family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations.

     A “member of the judge’s family” means any relative of a judge by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a member of the judge’s family.

(5)      A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official duties.

(E)      Fiduciary Activities.

      A judge may serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary only for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge’s family as defined in Canon 4D(4).

As a family fiduciary a judge is subject to the following restrictions:

(1)      The judge should not serve if it is likely that as a fiduciary the judge would be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or if the estate, trust, or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge serves or one under its appellate jurisdiction.

(2)      While acting as a fiduciary, a judge is subject to the same restrictions on financial activities that apply to the judge in a personal capacity.

(F)      Governmental Appointments.

      A judge may accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, or other position only if it is one that concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or if appointment of a judge is required by federal statute.

     A judge should not, in any event, accept such an appointment if the judge’s governmental duties would tend to undermine the public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, or independence of the judiciary. A judge may represent the judge’s country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational, and cultural activities.

(G)      Chambers, Resources, and Staff.     

     A judge should not to any substantial degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in extrajudicial activities permitted by this Canon.

(H)      Compensation, Reimbursement, and Financial Reporting.

 A judge may accept compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the law-related and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code if the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the judge’s judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions:

(1)      Compensation should not exceed a reasonable amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.

(2)      Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual costs of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s spouse or relative. Any additional payment is compensation.

(3)      A judge should make required financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and directives.

COMMENTARY

Canon 4.

     Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the judge lives. As a judicial officer and a person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revising substantive and procedural law and improving criminal and juvenile justice.

      To the extent that the judge’s time permits and impartiality is not compromised, the judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the law. Subject to the same limitations, judges may also engage in a wide range of non-law-related activities.

     Within the boundaries of applicable law (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 953) a judge may express opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges anywhere in the world if the judge has ascertained, after reasonable inquiry, that the persecution is occasioned by conflict between the professional responsibilities of the persecuted judge or lawyer and the policies or practices of the relevant government.

     A person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household and an intimate relationship should be considered a member of the judge’s family for purposes of legal assistance under Canon 4A(5), fund raising under Canon 4C, and family business activities under Canon 4D(2).

Canon 4A.    

      Teaching and serving on the board of a law school are permissible, but in the case of a for-profit law school, board service is limited to a non-governing advisory board.

     Consistent with this Canon, a judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono legal services.

Canon 4A(4)

     This Canon generally prohibits a judge from mediating a state court matter, except in unusual circumstances (e.g., when a judge is mediating a federal matter that cannot be resolved effectively without addressing the related state court matter).

Canon 4A(5).

      A judge may act pro se in all legal matters, including matters involving litigation and matters involving appearances before or other dealings with governmental bodies.

      In so doing, a judge must not abuse the prestige of office to advance the interests of the judge or the judge’s family.

Canon 4B.

      The changing nature of some organizations and their exposure to litigation make it necessary for a judge regularly to reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated to determine if the judge’s continued association is appropriate.

For example, in many jurisdictions, charitable hospitals are in court more often now than in the past.

Canon 4C

     A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event. Use of a judge’s name, position in the organization, and judicial designation on an organization’s letterhead, including when used for fund raising or soliciting members, does not violate Canon 4C if comparable information and designations are listed for others.

Canon 4D(1), (2), and (3)

     Canon 3 requires disqualification of a judge in any proceeding in which the judge has a financial interest, however small. Canon 4D requires a judge to refrain from engaging in business and from financial activities that might interfere with the impartial performance of the judge’s judicial duties. Canon 4H requires a judge to report compensation received for activities outside the judicial office.

     A judge has the rights of an ordinary citizen with respect to financial affairs, except for limitations required to safeguard the proper performance of the judge’s duties. A judge’s participation in a closely held family business, while generally permissible, may be prohibited if it takes too much time or involves misuse of judicial prestige or if the business is likely to come before the court on which the judge serves. Owning and receiving income from investments do not as such affect the performance of a judge’s duties.

Canon 4D(5)

     The restriction on using nonpublic information is not intended to affect a judge’s ability to act on information as necessary to protect the health or safety of the judge or a member of a judge’s family, court personnel, or other judicial officers if consistent with other provisions of this Code.

Canon 4E

     Mere residence in the judge’s household does not by itself make a person a member of the judge’s family for purposes of this Canon.

The person must be treated by the judge as a member of the judge’s family.

     The Applicable Date of Compliance provision of this Code addresses continued service as a fiduciary.

     A judge’s obligation under this Code and the judge’s obligation as a fiduciary may come into conflict.

      For example, a judge should resign as a trustee if it would result in detriment to the trust to divest holdings whose retention would require frequent disqualification of the judge in violation of Canon 4D(3).

Canon 4F

     The appropriateness of accepting extrajudicial assignments must be assessed in light of the demands on judicial resources and the need to protect the courts from involvement in matters that may prove to be controversial.

     Judges should not accept governmental appointments that could interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary, interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial responsibilities, or tend to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Canon 4H.

      A judge is not required by this Code to disclose income, debts, or investments, except as provided in this Canon. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and implementing regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference impose additional restrictions on judges’ receipt of compensation.

     That Act and those regulations should be consulted before a judge enters into any arrangement involving the receipt of compensation.

     The restrictions so imposed include but are not limited to:

(1)      a prohibition against receiving “honoraria” (defined as anything of value received for a speech, appearance, or article),

(2)      a prohibition against receiving compensation for service as a director, trustee, or officer of a profit or nonprofit organization, (3) a requirement that compensated teaching activities receive prior approval, and (4) a limitation on the receipt of “outside earned income.”

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

(B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.

(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.

COMMENTARY

The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.

Compliance with the Code of Conduct

Anyone who is an officer of the federal judicial system authorized to perform judicial functions is a judge for the purpose of this Code.

All judges should comply with this Code except as provided below.

(A)      Part-time Judge

     A part-time judge is a judge who serves part-time, whether continuously or periodically, but is permitted by law to devote time to some other profession or occupation and whose compensation for that reason is less than that of a full-time judge.

A part-time judge:

(1)      is not required to comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4E, 4F, or 4H(3);
(2)      except as provided in the Conflict-of-Interest Rules for Part-time Magistrate Judges, should not practice law in the court on which the judge serves or in any court subject to that court’s appellate jurisdiction, or act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.

(B)      Judge Pro Tempore

     A judge pro tempore is a person who is appointed to act temporarily as a judge or as a special master.

(1) While acting in this capacity, a judge pro tempore is not required to comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4D(3), 4E, 4F, or 4H(3); further, one who acts solely as a special master is not required to comply with Canons 4A(3), 4B, 4C, 4D(4), or 5.

(2)      A person who has been a judge pro tempore should not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.

(C)      Retired Judge

     A judge who is retired under 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) or § 372(a) (applicable to Article III judges), or who is subject to recall under § 178(d) (applicable to judges on the Court of Federal Claims), or who is recalled to judicial service, should comply with all the provisions of this Code except Canon 4F, but the judge should refrain from judicial service during the period of extrajudicial appointment not sanctioned by Canon 4F.

     All other retired judges who are eligible for recall to judicial service (except those in U.S. territories and possessions) should comply with the provisions of this Code governing part-time judges.

     However, bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges who are eligible for recall but who have notified the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that they will not consent to recall are not obligated to comply with the provisions of this Code governing part-time judges.

     Such notification may be made at any time after retirement, and is irrevocable. A senior judge in the territories and possessions must comply with this Code as prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 373(c)(5) and (d).

COMMENTARY

     The 2014 amendment to the Compliance section, regarding retired bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges and exempting those judges from compliance with the Code as part-time judges if they notify the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that they will not consent to recall, was not intended to alter those judges’ statutory entitlements to annuities, cost-of-living adjustments, or any other retirement benefits.

Applicable Date of Compliance

     Persons to whom this Code applies should arrange their financial and fiduciary affairs as soon as reasonably possible to comply with it and should do so in any event within one year after appointment.

     If, however, the demands on the person’s time and the possibility of conflicts of interest are not substantial, such a person may continue to act, without compensation, as an executor, administrator, trustee, or other fiduciary for the estate or person of one who is not a member of the person’s family if terminating the relationship would unnecessarily jeopardize any substantial interest of the estate or person and if the judicial council of the circuit approves.

Last revised (Transmittal 02-016) March 20, 2014

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/revoltingjudges_03a.htm

 

Interviews with Dr. Bernofsky on…

Inns of Court

attorneyhttp://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/innsofcourt_box.htm

Conservative talk show host of The Justice Hour, Florida attorneyLisa Macci, spoke with Dr. Bernofsky about the Inns of Court, his case against Tulane University, and his experience with the civil justice system. 

The program, which also featured her fellow attorney Elizabeth Case, was broadcast live over WPBR 1340 AM radio at 9:00 a.m., eastern standard time, on June 26, 2006.  The audio clip presented here runs about 38 minutes and has no commercial breaks.Carl Bernofsky, 2006

Carl Bernofsky

http://www.tulanelink.com/audio/macci_06a.swf

Lisa Macci may be contacted by email at: lisamacci@msn.com.

Her Web site is at:  http://www.lisamacci.com.


 

Judicial Conflict of Interest

Social activist and talk show host of Late Night with D’Anne, Illinois investigative reporter D’Anne Burley spoke with Dr. Bernofsky about judicial conflict of interest, his case against Tulane University, and his experience with the civil justice system.  The program was broadcast live over the Internet by the Republic Broadcasting Network (http://www.rbnlive.com) at 10:00 p.m., central standard time, on July 29, 2006.  The audio clip presented here runs about 41 minutes and has no commercial breaks.

http://www.tulanelink.com/audio/burley_06A.swf
D’Anne Burley may be contacted at: (630) 477-0860 or (630) 441-0548. 

Her Web site is at: http://danneburley.blogspot.com.  Broadcast archives are available at:http://www.rbnlive.com/archiveindex.html.


 

No Justice Here

Watch video, Carl Bernofsky, 2008

See video about Dr. Bernofsky’s case against Tulane University.  Click on image.

 

Special Rules for Special Cases,

for Example, in  Rule 26A.015

     Disqualification of justice or judge of the Court of Justice, or master commissioner.

(1)      For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated: (a) “Proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation; (b) “Fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, conservator, trustee, and guardian; (c) “Financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

1.      Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities, or a proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, or ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

2.      An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization.

(2)      Any justice or judge of the Court of Justice or master commissioner shall disqualify himself in any proceeding:

     (a)      Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings, or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the proceeding;

     (b)      Where in private practice or government service he served as a lawyer or rendered a legal opinion in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter in controversy, or the judge, master commissioner or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning the matter in controversy;

     (c)      Where he knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding;

     (d)      Where he or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

1. Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

2.      Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding and the disqualification is not waived by stipulation of counsel in the proceeding filed therein;

3.      Is known by the judge or master commissioner to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

4.      Is to the knowledge of the judge or master commissioner likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

      (e)      Where he has knowledge of any other circumstances in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(3) (a)      Any justice or judge of the Court of Justice disqualified under the provisions of this section shall be replaced by the Chief Justice.

     (b)      Any master commissioner disqualified under the provisions of this section or unable to discharge the duties of his office for any other reason shall be replaced by a special commissioner who shall be appointed by the judge of the court before whom the action is pending.

     The special commissioner shall meet the same qualifications as a master commissioner and shall take an oath and execute a bond as the regular commissioner is required to do.

Effective:     July 1, 1982 History: Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 41, effective July 1, 1982. — Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 22, sec. 4. Note: 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396, sec. 44 would have amended this section effective July 1, 1982. However, 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396 was repealed by 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 146, also effective July 1, 1982.

 

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

 


 

Robin’s Story, and also for Matthew, Laura, and Christopher|Rockwall/Dallas, Texas


Sixteen Years Without Children and Life to Go

Robin Karr’s Story, and also for Laura, Matthew, and brother, Christopher Karr, who will not be silenced, that you shall come home to your Real Mommy who Refuses and Refused Offer of Silence–No Con tract, Judges!

Robin Karr.Rockwall.TX.Judge Cynthia Kent.any relation to federal impeached judge Samuel Kent who my sons paternal aunt was law clerk for.Supervised_Visit_Police_Station.242215910_std

Robin Karr with Baby Laura and Matthew Duckworth near Rockwall, Texas (near Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas)

Robin Carr.Rockwall.Tx.family court fraud and abuse.me-matthew-and-laura-2004-150x150

JUSTICE.WALL OF SHAME.NJCOURTCORRUPTION.DEREK SYPHRETT

 

JUDGE CYNTHIA KENT.SMITH COUNTY TX.TYLER.KIDNAPPER OF ROBIN KARR'S CHILDREN NEAR ROCKWALL TX SIXTEEN YEARS NO CONTACT

 Judge Cynthia (Stevens) Kent, ret., 114th court

Tyler, Texas

(SMITH COUNTY)

 Judge Sue Pirtle,

 NOT PICTURED FOR FEAR OR COWARDICE LEST S/HE, TOO, SHALL BE JUDGED BY GOD ALMIGHTY

Former Judge Sitting by Assignment (Visiting Judge)

State of Texas

January 2000 – Present (15 years 4 months)State of Texas (Region I)

Family, Civil, Criminal

DID WE HAVE THE SAME JUDGE, OR

JUST THE SAME FRAUDULENT FAMILY COURT R.I.C.O.

COURT CON?

 

The haunting melody of the nostalgic voice of the untimely, tragically gone, but not forgotten songstress, Karen Carpenter’s recording of “Yesterday Once More” is the soundtrack for the paralyzing feeling that what all of us mommies  who are still  reading  so strongly knew we were surely “imagining,” but could not be, the rote rehearsal style routine practice and patterned protocol and procedure suborned and commissions pre-packaged, pre-priced, pre-screened, pre-determined outcomes, the levels funding based kidnappings of our sweet little healthy, happy, adoptable children by the family courts in Texas, below:

Judge Cynthia Kent Grants Custody to an Abuser

 

January 5, 2000
Judge Cynthia Kent
c/o Elaine Holmes

RE: Cause No. 1-98-435 (382nd District Court, Rockwall County, Texas)
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF EDWARD NEIL DUCKWORTH AND
ROBIN LEE DUCKWORTH AND THE INTEREST OF MATTHEW NAKAI
DUCKWORTH AND LAURA DANIELLE DUCKWORTH MINOR CHILDREN

Dear Judge Kent,

I am the co-founder of Children And Loving Parents (CALP)-a chartered non-profit organization located near Rockwall Texas. I am writing in an effort, to appeal to your knowledge, your wisdom, your faith, and your conscious. I am writing on behalf of Robin Duckworth, however, I am not writing at her request. This letter serves two purposes:

1) To serve as evidence in the Duckworth file that CALP is very concerned about the integrity of both the judicial system’s actions and the actions of CASA and CPS in Robin’s case, and;

2) to bring to surface a few facts that you may have never known at the time you rendered your verdict.

We believe that the Duckworth case has been filled with trickery, deceit, mockery, and cruelty -none of which are desirable attributes for our legal and judicial systems.

I am sure that you agree. Unfortunately, the one’s who have suffered are the innocent children and their grieving mother.

We attended many of the hearings regarding this case, including the last part of the final hearing that you presided over. I couldn’t help but notice your references to family and the importance of parents in the lives of their children.

Without a doubt, CALP agrees with you- if the parent is a safe and good influence upon the children. Yet, we are perplexed and saddened at the many successful attempts to thwart Robin Duckworth’s good intentions.

Even worse, we are upset that he court system has not recognized these ‘tricks’ used by Ed Duckworth and his attorney to intentionally make Robin’s life miserable.

My question is this. What would you do as a mother to protect your children if you thought they were living in an unstable and unsafe environment?

Even a stubborn, proud, ‘never ask for help’ man would humble himself to ask every available person for help – again and again. You and I probably wouldn’t do this for ourselves, but we would for our children. Isn’t this exactly what Robin has done? Is this so wrong?

At what point did Robin act so inappropriate that she deserved to have her children kept from her. Did she break the law? No. (She was put in jail for crying and not leaving the courtroom when Judge Pirtle and Trish Verde refused to advise her as to when she could have her next visitation. Is this really ‘irrational’ when a mother hasn’t seen or held her children in a very long time?

By the way, why was she arrested for criminal trespass when there were still many other people in the courthouse? Why weren’t the other people that were present arrested for trespassing?)

Does Robin have a history of running away with the children? No. Does she have a history of hurting the children? No. Does she have a history of disobeying the courts? No. (Ed’s attorney stated that Robin had told the Kentucky court that she would not abide by the visitation decree from her first marriage. She may or may not have said that .. but, what did she do? She abided by the visitation decree very well. She even notified, in writing, the Kentucky court within 2 weeks of when she moved to Houston. We are in possession of that letter. Unbelievably, Judge Pirtle did not allow that letter to be submitted into evidence.)

Now let’s compare the history of Ed and Robin. Robin graduated high school and college with honors. Ed barely passed high school. After almost 6 years in college he dropped out with a GP A below 2.0. Who held a job and supported the family?

Robin did. She worked at Dillard’s and excelled as a departmental manager. Ed failed to hold a job, including one stint as a car salesman. When they moved to Kentucky, Robin continued working at another clothing store. Ed attempted a gig as a local police officer, however he quit when faced with being tired for shooting and killing a chained dog.

While living in Kentucky Ed filed for divorce. In his affidavit to the court Ed stated Robin should be named the fit and proper caretaker of the children! He never alleged Robin of being unfit in any way as a mother.

However, wanting to salvage their marriage, Robin replied to the court that she did not believe their marriage to be beyond repair. (Wouldn’t anyone that takes their vows before God in a serious manner do all they could to save the marriage? Robin did – Ed didn’t.) Just think if Robin had given up as easily as Ed had, she would be the managing conservator of Matthew and Laura at this time.

Instead, Ed, his attorney, and the Texas judicial system have raked Robin over the coals and treated her like a criminally insane parent. Robin has always been the reliable provider for the children, yet she has been punished and ridiculed for her faith.

The reason: Supposedly she said something to Ed on a tape that was later played to Melody East, an unlicensed social worker with CASA. Melody East then recommended to Judge Pirtle that Robin have only supervised visitation because she expressed ‘alarming’ religious beliefs and had made ‘alarming’ remarks.

One such remark was, “I hope God takes your lives if you continue to harm the children.” How did this statement start ridiculous allegations that Robin might harm her children?

Personally, I also wish that God would remove all child abusers from the earth. Does this make me a danger to children? No. It doesn’t make Robin a danger to her children either.

Also, Melody East never completed the social study. She never interviewed Robin’s mother or Robin’s other references. Incredulously Melody never spoke to the number one witness Christopher Karr. Christopher is Robin’s son from her first marriage.

Christopher witnessed Earnest Duckworth’s (Ed’s father) verbal, mental and physical abuse first hand. In fact, Christopher had written several letters to friends about the abuse well before Robin moved out of the Duckworth house.

Wouldn’t these letters be undeniable evidence that abuse was taking place? Wouldn’t Christopher’s testimony have been the most important evidence in this case?

Yet, Melody East never spoke to Christopher or Robin’s other witnesses. In addition, Judge Pirtle would not allow Christopher’s letters into evidence.

Even mare appalling- Robin’s witnesses were never allowed to testify. All of her witnesses came to trial on Feb. 26, 1999. Robin had at least 4 witnesses including her mother, one cousin, Christopher, and a close friend from Houston who had known Robin and Ed when they lived there. Robin’s witnesses traveled a combined distance of almost 3000 miles.

Unbelievably, Judge Pirtle made no offer to let Robin’s witnesses testify since they had come such a great distance. Instead, Judge Pirtle allowed Ed’s attorney, Charles Schuerenburg, to ask questions (stall for time) to Melody East, Tish Verde, and others. Judge Pirtle knew that Robin could not afford to fly her witnesses down a second time.

We believe that Judge Pirtle knowingly and purposefully hindered Robin’s right to a fair trial by not giving her witnesses the opportunity to testify. Judge Pirtle even scheduled the second half of the trial nearly two weeks away, instead of the following Monday, insuring that Robin’s witnesses would not testify.

In addition, sanctions were imposed against Robin and her attorney for filing a supposedly ‘frivolous’ report to CPS and requesting a Protective Order concerning abuse that Robin felt had occurred at the hands of Ed’s father. (Perhaps, Judge Kent, you were not knowledgeable of all the facts when you sanctioned Robin. That is what we hope.)

Doesn’t state law require that a person must report confirmed or suspected abuse to a child?

Mr. Duckworth’s attorney tried to make Robin look like a liar, because she didn’t report the abuse at the time it happened. Instead, he stated that she was now conveniently making it up since there was a battle for the children. How absurd!

The facts show that Robin and Ed were living in the home of Mr. Duckworth at that believe they can protect their children until they can develop an escape plan away from the abuse. Once again, the facts show that Robin moved back to Kentucky shortly after the abuse.

Doesn’t the fact that every time Robin saw her children with substantial bruises (I have pictures.) and reoccurring sickness during each visitation also give cause for concern, suspicion and reporting?

Doesn’t the fact that the two children have been to the doctor and/or hospital 31 times in 10 months give rise to concern and suspicion? Doesn’t the fact that she witnessed abuse while living with Ed’s parents cause concern?

Doesn’t the fact that Christopher, Robin’s oldest son, wrote letters concerning the abuse to friends before the court case started (I have copies) give cause for concern and suspicion?

Doesn’t the fact that Christopher also signed an affidavit confirming the abuse give cause for concern and suspicion?

Betty Hable, director of the Ombudsman’s office, has even confirmed that CPS has concerns that the paternal grandfather was physically abusive toward Matthew.

We are very troubled that you fined and penalized Robin for reporting suspected abuse when she was faced with disobeying the law if she didn’t report her suspicions! We are even more upset with the fact that Robin is reprimanded from making any other allegations of suspected or confirmed abuse. I ask, is this justice?

How could this happen? How did Robin get fined for doing what is right? I know we all make mistakes. I’m willing to admit that I do. I hope that you too are willing to admit that you made a mistake in your judgements against Robin. I hope even more that you will do all you can in your judicial authority to correct this wrong and make it right. Robin is not an insane mother making improper allegations. She is a protective, caring, loving mother that wants to see her children in a safe, nurturing environment. Once again I ask. what would you do .. not as a judge – but as a Christian and a mother?

Now Robin faces yet another obstacle – meeting the demands of a visitation decree that is both confusing and extremely burdensome. In your judgement you stated that you believed Robin had a medical problem that required medication. Then, being sure of your evaluation, you based the decree upon Robin seeing a psychiatrist and taking the medicine that they would prescribe her. But what was to happen when Robin’s nationally acclaimed psychiatrist did not find Robin to be in need of medication- but only finds her to be severely depressed due to missing her children (a natural response for a concerned, loving mother)?

In addition, you required Robin to line up a psychiatrist within a month. Finding a psychologist is relatively easy but a psychiatrist can take months! (My wife and I have been searching for a psychiatrist to evaluate our daughter’s ADHD. The shortest waiting list we found was 5 months!)

It took Robin a month to line up her psychiatrist. ‘This automatically made her miss the first date (July 1) you had based her visitation rights upon.

However, since acquiring a psychiatrist she has tried to do everything stated concerning her psychiatric evaluations.

However, Ed’s attorney has written a letter stating that they will seek to have her thrown in jail for not following the order. In addition. Robin has not been able to afford trips to Texas to see her children.

She has another son that she must take care of. His father has not been paying child support, which makes things even more difficult for Robin. With the psychiatrist and expenses she has been forced to rely only upon phone calls to stay in her children’s lives.

But this has been made even more difficult due to the fact that Ed will not answer the phone and has turned off his answering machine – all in an effort to distance Robin’s children from her.

However, through all of this, Robin saved enough money to buy birthday and Christmas gifts and a plane ticket to Dallas during November. Once again, Robin did everything she thought she was supposed to do according to the visitation decree.

She sent letters to Ed and the District Clerk. by Nov. 1, 1999, concerning her psychiatric evaluation(s) so that she could see her children on Nov. 13·14.

She sent all letters certified mail. She took 4 days off work to come to Rockwall to see her children, even though Ed’s attorney, Charles Schuerenberg, threatened to get a bench warrant for her arrest if she came to Rockwall.

Despite all this, she still came to see her babies. If that’s not true love I don’t know what is. Upon arriving in Rockwall, Robin gave my wife and I a notarized statement to act as the competent adults to pick up the children -just as stated in the decree. We felt this would
definitely be better for the children since it would avoid any possible conflicts between Ed and Robin. Upon arriving at Ed’s house, Ed absolutely refused to hand over the children.

Ed then ran back into his house and called the police. When the police arrived Ed fabricated a lie and told the officers that he had spoken to Robin’s psychiatrist the day before and that her psychiatrist was sending a second letter forbidding Robin to see the children! We then asked the officers to ask Ed if he would allow Robin to see the children for a supervised visitation the next day.

The officers told my wife and I that Ed made it clear to them that he would never let Robin see the children again no matter what! The officers then advised us that we needed to keep a good paper trail of what had occurred. We were then told that Robin needed to go to the police station and file “Interference with Child Custody”, which is what she did.

Robin was never allowed to see her babies. Can you believe she has never been allowed to celebrate either of Laura’s birthdays? She has never celebrated Christmas with her either.

How discouraged would this make you feel as a mother? Yet, Robin somehow finds the courage and desire to hang in there. Robin loves and misses her children deeply.
Now Robin’s good intentions are once again being turned against her. Charles Schuerenberg has written Robin to threaten her again. He is using the visitation decree that he wrote, against her.

He stated that he intends to have her thrown in jail. I believe this is revenge for Robin filing “Interference with Child Custody” against Ed. What Ed did was wrong and downright mean!

Robin came 1200 miles to see her children, hold them, love them, and give them gifts.
Your honor, please listen to your heart on this matter. Robin is really doing her best. If shemoves here from Kentucky, her older son can’t see his dad. Either way, she gets slammed.

So she does her best. You even stated in your final words of the hearing that the order periods of possession would “be subject to very definitely financial ability.”

This tells me that you were trying to recognize Robin’s peril in paying for psychiatric sessions, making expensive trips to Texas, taking off from work, and juggling all the issues.

We are asking that you reconsider your order. We don’t believe that you ever meant to say Robin could not see her children in November if she didn’t get every psychiatric report completed in July.

It seems to us that you were saying Robin’s visitations were to be based upon her complying with her psychiatrist’s orders then submitting that compliancy letter from the psychiatrist before she attempted visitation.

If your order were interpreted in any other way then Robin’s inability to see a psychiatrist by July 1, 1999 would prohibit her from ever seeing her children again.

I do not believe that you is what you intended. However, Ed’s attorney is trying to have Robin thrown in jail based upon his manipulation of the visitation decree.

Robin had no choice but to file “Interference with Child Custody” against Ed. His actions as dictated by Texas state law are a criminal act, not a civil act.

Therefore, Robin had aresponsibility to file a report even though she did not obtain leave of court to do so. Robin’s report to the Rockwall police was not merely a ‘complaint’ but was a witness’ statement to a felony crime. The police made the choice to ask the D.A. ‘s office to bring charges against Ed.

We hope and pray that you will see things the same and not allow your instinct as a mother, a Christian, and a parent, to be clouded by your judicial experience in today’s corrupt society.

Sincerely,
Derek S.
Co-Founder and V.P.

Read also, http://janiemcqueen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Judgee-Pirtle-Wanted-for-Kidnapping.pdf

1.     Click on the link below to read mother and author, Robin Karr’s provocative case supported by strong evidence against, generally, but not limited to, “‘state’ of Texas,” and also on behalf of all maternally deprived mothers and children, being natural (wo)man and individuals,

http://www.motherswithoutcustodyworld.com

2.     Click on the link below to read Kentucky Senator Virgil Moore’s scathing letter against and addressed to, among other public officials, “state” and local Texas and social services and county officials on behalf of parents Doug and Kathie Harliss and their “business or commercial assets,”

http://www.motherswithoutcustodyworld.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Kentuky_State_Senator_Letter_about_Texas_Taking_Children.250130237.pdf\

Mothers Without Custody World

Laura Turns Sweet 16

 

 

Robin Karr.precious Laura found.on facebook

Robin Karr’s Baby Laura, Sixteen Years Later, Found Picture on Facebook.com

Dear Laura, will you ever know how much your real Mommy, Robin Karr, loved, adored, and missed you every second of every minute of every day and painful, agonizing, most likely sleepless nights?  How could you?

Dear Robin, will you ever know what your little girl felt or the pain she felt without you?

How could she?

I I pray and hope with all ;my heart and real mommy of little Julian’s soul that you, Laura have come home to Mommy, whatever age.

From one to another mother whose child bought and sold  just shall surely find them out.

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

Betty’s Baby Kidnapped by CPS (Short Video)


Betty’s Baby Kidnapped by CPS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PvZCm1BnLsU

 

 Uploaded on Jun 21, 2008

Betty Power’s 1 day old Baby is KIDNAPPED by
THUGS from CPS, City Police, and the blessings
of Catholic Judge Garcia and alleged Lesbian Judge

Uploaded on Jun 21, 2008

Betty Power’s 1 day old Baby is KIDNAPPED by
THUGS from CPS, City Police, and the blessings
of Catholic Judge Garcia and alleged Lesbian Judge
Barbara Beck, who was in retirement. TV show OST
Exposed the CPS Kidnapping under-color-of-Law

LORI HANDRAHAN AND MILA’S CASE IN MAINE


RE-POSTING FROM BLOG BELOW . . .

bECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MINUTE DETAILS THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS DID OR DID NOT MISS ON PURPOSE THAT BEAR A STRIKING RESEMBLANCE TO DETAILS TO/ AT ACTUALLY OCCURRING AND/OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND “COACHING” CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ALLEGED BY CHILD WHO IS NOW EIGHT YEARS OLD AND DENIED ALL CONTACT WITH LOVING MOTHER FOR THREE YEARS, THOUGH described as “Joni Saloom” did what all non-offending professionals demanded s/he do and believed he/r only child, private property sometimes described for profit by “state” absent (un)timely, sufficient notice, AS DID ALL OTHER PROFESSIONALS AS CONFESSED AND IN “OUTCOMES” BASE, . . . OF THEN (2012) FIVE YEAR OLD LITTLE BOY (MAY 2012) BY  CHERYL HARVICK, LESLY DAMIAN-MURRAY, KAREN COBLENTZ, OTHERS ON THEIR “TEAM” IN BRAZORIA COUNTY CPS FOR CHILD’S “FATHER,” MATTHEW JAMES WORRELL AND FAMILY IN HARRIS COUNTY, TOMBALL, TEXAS AND “PLAY THERAPIST,” KIMBERLY A. ABERNETHY (LICENSED BY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS”/”DFPS,” CPS DIVISION), PEARLAND POLICE OFFICER PAUL ELTON, AND HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE/OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT/COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT’S SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS APPOINTMENT AND (FORMER) SGT. WILLIAM LILLY, IN CONTRAVENTION OF US CONSTITUTIONAL, NATURAL LAW, AND INALIENABLE AND UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND LIBERTIES OF MOTHER  AND CHILD, described as “Joni Saloom,” WHOSE SON HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED AND TRAFFICKED PURSUANT TO, AMONG OTHER CRIMES PERPETRATED PURSUANT TO “COLOR OF AUTHORITY OF LAW” INDIVIDUAL CO-COMPLICITS FALSELY ALLEGE “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS,”  ” GETTING HIT OVER THE HEAD” (peppered with the same old “domestic violence” at falsely alleged to have allegedly said to “tell ‘Daddy’ . . . “chop off head” “coached,” but actually, by complicits, being individuals, and each of them:  cps, police officer, father, and play therapist individuals, and other suborned, “commissioned” individuals, specialists, “experts,” guardian ad litem, amicus attorneys, a multitude of special interest service providers for the various “states,” BAR members, essentially, against sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy,” and  also  in the case of Lori Handrahan, and also for he/r little daughter, he/r only “child,” Lori’s private property not yet, but to be restoreth.

 May Lori’s, he/r daughter’s, “Julian’s Real Mummy’s,” Julian . . . ” of Genealogy Saloom’s, waking nightmares END.  MAY the nightmares End, for all of s real mommies FORCED TO ENDURE THE ABUSE OF ROGUE TERRORISTS PERMITTED TO OPERATE BY COMPLICIT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AGENTS, AND NOW, POLICE WILL BE CALLED “VENDORS” WITH CPS.  IN CASE THEY HAVEN’T REALIZED IT YET, THE “MENTAL HEALTH” TRICK IS A TRICK OLDER THAN TIME.  NOT BUYING IT!  IT IS CLEAR WHO THE DANGEROUS PSYCHOTICS REALLY ARE IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS AND AFFAIRS.  BUT THEN, WE ALWAYS KNEW THAT AS A SOCIETY, AND WE STILL DO, DIDN’T WE?

We DO Not, and we shalt not forget  crimes against our children, crimes against real mommies, real beings with real feelings, hearts, memories, and consciousness, natural (wo)man, individual, the vessel on whose waters berthed/birthed little natural man, being living, corporeal body imbued with the live holy Spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD, the “alpha and the omega” “the first and the last,” the “I AM.”

Yet, we are forced still here to endure it, and also in spite of the usual “suspected classes” and hacks(ers) contracted by . . . the usual “suspected classes” and defendants, and each of them, who, being subjected to Higher law and authority will always, naturally, loathe the undeniable pure and real truth that is the faith and the strength, the humble confidence that WINS the marathon.

Of the thousands of mothers who grieve for our children, “Julian’s Real Mummy,” described sometimes as “Joni Saloom” also prays that private property/”children and full and fair compensation available, but not “subjected” to semantic art) be restored also to:

sometimes described as,  ” Linda Marie Sacks (Ormond Beach, Florida;  Volusia County);  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki(Dakota County, Minnesota), Leah  Dannewitz (Carver County, Minnesota), Kimberly Sperling (Dakota County, Minnesota), Caroline Rice (Minnesota), “Emily Court” (Minnesota), Sharon and Bill Burns, the real parents of little Donnelly Keaton Burns who was wrongfully adopted without any cause, but for nothing more than the retaliation, the burning jealousy and pride of vindictive ex-wife  whose mother was a veteran, though retired social worker for corrupt Riverside County DPS for thirty years (Ontario, California; Riverside County; see active civil class complaint in the case of A.A. v. County of Riverside , 5:14-cv-2556, US Central District of California, Riverside division, filed 12/12/”2014″), Amy Charron (Houston, Texas; Harris County), Jennie Morton (Conroe, Athens, Dallas, Texas; Montgomery, Ellis, Dallas Counties, Texas–moves all forced after, but not before bizarre crimes by law enforcement and other ring members made the moves matter of survival for Jennie), apparently had a book published in 2013, Standing Strong, Trisha Schafer (Houston, Texas ; Harris County), reportedly the target of customary Texas style police and law enforcement judicial and worse interference, but way more than the usual, and interestingly lived right down the street from mine and my son’s former home, and also kidnapper’s current husband of his wife’s former husband, father of he/r three still get to live with their real mommy in the same home  with my real, natural son cps and guardian ad litem/court-appointed child’s attorney sinecure top campaign contributor every year as reported in the Texas Tribune and see Public Integrity Unit records,  Donna Everson conspired “stepparent adoption” so solicitously advertised and trending on all family law attorney sites, but supervised (un)”SAFE VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE CENTRE, INC.”/ (free stalking for fathers) unconstitutional rook jobs are not without guilt, lies, and, generally, criminal enterprise racketeering structure (Houston, Texas; Harris County),  Miriam Blank, earned a medical degree which Texas can never truly, or wrongfully and in customary retaliation so familiar to author of this post, take away from he/r like he/r five daughters, God-given gifts (Houston, Texas; Harris County and also Utah “suspected class” facility, on knowledge and belief), Robin Karr (Rockwall, Texas; Tyler, Texas; Dallas and Smith Counties, and also Kentucky State Police), more than sixteen years of “no contact with no reason), Andrea Lebow. another school teacher lost four year old little girl to registered sex offender father in Texas (Amarillo, Texas; Potter County), Michelle Murphy (Newnan, Georgia; Coweta County); Susan Skipp (a usual ideological “suspected class” “state”), Melissa Harris (a usual ideological “suspected class,” politically obsessed, or, perhaps, to give the benefit of the doubt, misguided (?) and i can’t figure out because so good at rehearsing neutral neutering for homogeneous “ambiguity” play, but Stands in truth and righteously battles (Ephesians 6:11, The Holy Bible, all verziones reales) intolerable acts like the Dickens (New Jersey), Brenda Battle Jordan, who i believe ran or said s/he was running for mayor at the time, and read about he/r help (now deceased) agent Gunderson’s and his partner’s research unveiled “The Damon 10,000 Screw,”The Fix is In” game in family court fraud (Detroit, Michigan), Dr. Cherie Safapou, another doctoral degreed mother to little son who begs to come home to his real mommy who the court, in spite of Dr. Safapou’s degree . . .in psychology, mislabeled it by proxy for wrongful, dishonest services profit, but not he/rs and certainly not little “I AM’s” (Marin County, California), mother, but with media coverage, Dr. Ruby Dillon, a dentist and real, natural mommy (Texas; California), Kathy Lee Scholpp (Massachusetts “State” Police; Rhode Island); Susan Farris, an investigative news writer(California), Connie Bedwell (Auburn, California; Placer County), Karen Anderson (Davis, California; Yolo County), as told directly to me by Deborah Connor (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas; Tarrant County), another real mommy who, pursuant to the same scheme in the late 1990’s, had he/r three week only baby girl who she was still feeding in the natural way and her other child ripped away, career as flight attendant also sabotaged by children’s father, bankrupted, rendered homeless but climbed he/r way back where a district attorney somewhere eventually helped he/r get her children back, but not the same (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas, Tarrant County; Salt Lake City, Utah; Billings, Montana, father lived in Honolulu, Hawaii), Rebecca McLaughlin, a Ph.D. earning mother(Rhode Island), Stacy Lynne, energy sector (Fort Collins, Colorado; Jefferson County), young mother who had the misfortune to get locked out of he/r home only to call the police for help who then called cps to kidnap called “remove” infant, Johneisha Kemper who did receive settlement by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for child “protection” via attorney Shawn McMillan (Los Angeles County, California) who also won jury award of $4.9 million dollars tolled to almost $10 million with lone star lodestar, taxes, and court costs due to stubborn cps refused to settle the case regarding real mommy, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick (Seal Beach California; County of San Diego), the same story as HERE, recently, the interestingly popular mother, Dr. Ruby Dillon, real mommy, natural mother (Tustin, California, Orange County),   Pamela Gaston (Portland, Oregon; Michigan), Angela/”Mad Angel” (Washington State), Theola Nealy (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), real,  being the natural mommy, who was raped, or, otherwise not “mentally disabled,” and also by he/r social worker, he, the same kidnapping cps father, . . . Nealy’s, mother’s, cps social worker, the judgment free father against whom the actual $1,000,000 judgment  plus rendered lies (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), Tammy Rief (California judge, though Tammy is from Georgia, but in Alabama), and we grieve for the loss of real mommies,’ Sandy Fonzo‘s (deceased) son, “victim” of former Judge Mark Ciavarella’s and Michael Conahan’s, and also others,’ scandalous, landmark case-making “Kids-for-Cash” court (Luzerne, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania), and also Karen Scott,  mother of Nathan Grieco, suicided by  “threat therapy, “jurisprudence,” at age sixteen (North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh; Westmoreland County; see also federal case decided in favor of parent’s rights against over zealous social services workers, Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Services, 103 F. 3d 1123 (3rd Cir., 1997), and also for the loss of real mommy, recent, 2015 suicide by social services and social workers stole Lacey Drier, mother of three children and step-child (Parma, Michigan), and i also grieve for real mommy who was forced to “suffer” the loss, the tragic social-worker inspired accidental death of little Logan Marr (Kennebac County, Maine).”

One who takes the time to read and have right to any opinion shall appropriately observe that the majority of all “similarly ‘deprived'” mothers have good educations and many also had good careers until lives destroyed and some even made homeless the direct result of such schemes and juvenile “games.

 Most Important Thank You and Hats Off to any and all Supporters (absent art, extortion, deception)of Real Mommys.  Your work is very important.  Thank you to author of the following article,  keith harmon snow, to Brett Redmayne Titley, who has followed-up on the Ruby Dillon case.  For your invaluable, thorough, and amazingly cogent and well-reasoned, thoughtful research, thank you also to the following individuals who have courageously acted and who Stand committed to doing their jobs the right way, the only way.  to the incredible and thorough research and sometimes costly experiences,  and writings of, among others forced to endure experiences that apparently produce desirable character, strength, and fortitude: Liz Richards of the Liz Library, Robin Sacks guest speaker, a lawyer, on Fox News affiliate in California, Gina Silva, investigative reporter of the same Fox affiliate in California, Kathleen Russell of Center for Judicial Excellence, Garland Waller, documentary filmmaker in Boston, Dr. Joyanna Silberg of the Leadership Council, Barry Goldstein, researcher, author, speaker, expert in family law matters who specializes in this “high conflict” niche, Dr. Judith Reisman, who has passionately shed light where dare not most all others within described sometimes as “Julian’s Real Mommy’s” present knowledge, and thank you also to the lone ranger gentlemen out there in Southern California and their new  colleague, superstar lawyers for families and children and their rights, and equally other non “suspect classes,” Shawn McMillan, Dean Browning-Webb a.k.a. “R.I.C.O. man,” Colbern Stuart, III (officially non-practicing, but nevertheless, like a lion), and right there with “Cole” at California Coalition for Families and Children (“CCFC”), a public benefit corporation, and Michelle’s baby in Minnesota, Family Innocence Project.  “What a long, strange trip it has been,” and we’re still on the ride, though, a few of us sadly far away from the tide, for, as former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer once spoke, . . .”some things are worth losing for.”  This real mommy adds, for all the right reasons.  For those who still have yet to be sufficiently humbled–educated “lowly wise”–or maybe for those were just not meant to get it, or yet . . . . right with ALMIGHTY GOD  and/or one another putting first orphans, widows, children, and those who cannot provide for themselves, the sick, the hungry, and the meek, the pure as a child at heart, this right way is the REAL definition to practice daily, “in good faith,” “for good cause shown,” “in furtherance of justice,” your u.S constitutional oath as officer of the honorable Federal US district,  “state,” county, civil, probate, and last, but first real “priority” on the calendar, family/dependency/juvenile, and especially ” (‘East Texas’) CPS cluster” courts.

Conscious Being Alliance

THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED MOTHERS


Posted on June 28, 2012 8:01 AM
Written by: keith harmon snow
Photography Credits: keith harmon snow
Article URL: http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/06/threats-on-facebook-to-rape-women-supporting-protective-mothers/


THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED MOTHERS
Social Media Increasingly Abets Harassment and Censors Truth

28 June 2012

keith harmon snow

After years of harassment and judicial abuse in the state of Maine, protective mother Lori Handrahan and her supporters face threats of rape and other verbal sexual abuse on social networking media.  Welcome to the new world disorder of social networking, where ethics are meaningless and anyone can get away with practically anything – unless it would seriously help make the world a better place, and then it can be flagged, reported or deleted (by invisible and unaccountable administrators) if it threatens someone’s violent or hateful interests or ‘offends’ the abusers.

Like other social networking media, Facebook appears to be unable to discriminate between abusive men and abusive men’s ‘rights’ organizations and those (mostly women) who are under attack by them. Instead of punishing the abusers and traffickers of children, the system appears more and more to sanction them and support trafficking of children, domestic violence and violence against women.  Want to file a serious compliant with Facebook? Good luck!

SIS Handrahan.jpg

Dr. Lori Handrahan

On May 22, 2012 the abusive and litigious Maine attorney Michael Waxman launched a Facebook post that by June 19th had evolved into a discussion where Jeff Pyle, a Colorado man who appears to love Michael Waxman, posted threats promising to rape and sodomize the several women engaged in a hostile exchange with Waxman for the defense of Lori Handrahan.

While Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and most other protective parents’ stories of judicial abuse and destruction remain disbelieved, unheard and unknown, Lori Handrahan’s efforts to Save Mila have resulted in a very high-profile case garnering national attention — thanks to the Internet and the outrage of thousands of people across the country.  Both mothers Lori Handrahan and Sunny Kelley have not seen their children for months.

Hell for Lori Handrahan came in the form of her daughter Mila being raped by her husband, a foreigner who has now apparently gained citizenship under questionable circumstances.  Like most mothers entrapped and abused by the family court system, Lori Handrahan never technically lost custody of her daughter Mila.  “In June 2009 my daughter Mila came home with a shredded vagina and Igor [husband] was substantiated with raping her,” says Lori Handrahan.  “The courts did nothing.  Mila was 2 years old at the time.”

“The state of Maine has trafficked my child Mila,” Lori Handrahan told me, in January 2012, right before the court forced a gag order upon her and shut down her web site.

Dr. Lori Handrahan is a professor at the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C.  Dr. Handrahan’s credentials are impeccable, with over 20 years of work in international development and human rights all over the world.  She was a guest on CNN and her op-eds about human rights and sex trafficking were often published in the New York Times. “Now that my child’s life is on the line I can’t get any news coverage at all.  Every single media outlet I’ve gotten interested has killed the story at the last minute.”

Lori and Mila’s case also involves corruption within the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including the illegal naturalization of Ukrainian and Russian nationals who have stolen Mila away from her loving mother.

While available to discuss her case in early January, Lori Handrahan was later served with a gag order, intimidated into silence out of fear for her daughter’s life, and possibly her own.  Sometime in late January or early February of this year, the web site created to help them — “Saving Mila” — went dead.

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/spurwink-report-of-milas-sex-abuse-report-3

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/milas-picture-of-the-rock-poppa-and-michael-sniff0001?related=1

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-1-11760752?related=4

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-judge-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-2-11760751?related=5

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/trevor-letter-about-waxman0001?related=2

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-disqual-waxman-part-3-11760749?related=3

CHILD TRAFFICKING IN MAINE

Maine attorney Michael Waxman quite literally gets away with anything he likes in Maine. In the course of her nightmare to recover her child Mila from the alleged abusive father, Igor Malenko, protective mother Lori Handrahan confronted all levels of the system in Maine and was repeatedly stifled by Maine officials.

“I believe that both Michael Waxman and Igor Malenko are both now and have been committing civil contempt of court since May of 2011,” expert investigator Stephen Pickering wrote to Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson on February 1, 2012, after Waxman turned the court into a circus of inappropriate verbal and physical aggression on January 31.  While there was no order restricting Handrahan’s visitation with Mila, Waxman and Malenko had blocked all visitation for some time.

According to investigator Stephen Pickering, Waxman stood up and pointed his finger at the judge and raised his voice to the point that “some would describe this as yelling at the judge. Pickering further concluded that both Waxman and Malenko “committed criminal contempt of court on January 31, 2012, by their willful disregard of the judge’s ordering his courtroom as the judge was affirming his order.”

On February 1, 2012, Waxman sent an email to Judy Potter, Lori Handrahan’s attorney, stating: “And the more I think of it, the less I am convinced that this court has any power over ME in any fashion.”

Judge Jeffrey Moskoitz also behaved inappropriately on January 31, 2012, but Moskowitz has a long history of alleged collusion and corruption with attorney Michael Waxman. At the January 31 kangaroo court, Waxman threatened a lawsuit against District Attorney Stephanie Anderson and he filed the lawsuit in early February.  Five witnesses who were present provided affidavits testifying to what occurred in Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz’s court on January 31, 2012.

“The hearing began with Michael Waxman leading the court into confusion over labeling the massive amounts of documents he introduced, of such proportions that it was clear no one had the time to ever read them,” wrote witness Carrie Rockwell.  “He then harangued his client, Igor Malenko, for over an hour, thrusting at him pictures of Igor’s daughters’ anus and vagina, and reading allowed an email Waxman himself wrote to a woman whom he met on Facebook revealing his thought’s about what could be done to Mila’s vagina with a Coke bottle.  All this was done to prove what ten people in the room knew and could prove with certainty was a lie.”

One witness suggested that attorney Michael Waxman appeared to commit perjury, suborning perjury, falsifying evidence, and a conspiracy to commit fraud upon the court.

Now Waxman has created a new Internet site to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters.  The site, called S.T.E.A.M. — Stopping the Explopitation, Abuse and Murder of our Children — is aligned with an assortment or other organizations, causes and petitions, but is inherently a front for Waxman’s destructive “father’s rights” agenda and self-protection.

STEAM WAXMAN HANDRAHAN .jpg

The S.T.E.A.M. web site is very sloppy.  As early as December 20111, Waxman revealed in casual web posts that a new web site was under design to replace the Facebook page called FOR THE LOVE OF MILA — another page created as a front to present Waxman’s disinformation.  The new S.T.E.A.M. web site was apparently launched in May 2012.

While Lori Handrahan — white, professional and highly accomplished mother — is offered as the primary column for “Featured Abusers for June 2012” (see below) the other abusers of the month are two African-American couples who allegedly killed their children.  Thus the architects of the site have provided two additional examples of violence against children that both fit the societal stereotype of black people as criminals. Contrary to media representations and Hollywood stereotypes about people of color, there are also high rates of domestic violence, rape and murder in white communities.  However, by placing Lori Handrahan next to these two black couples the hidden message is that Lori Handrahan is a violent criminal.

The two African-American alleged murder couples appear with Lori Handrahan on the HOME page.  This is just window dressing.  The web pages were hastily designed to provide a false sense of depth behind the front designed primarily to harass Lori Handrahan, and there are errors and inconsistencies in the web design beyond the HOME page.

For example, the menu at the top of the HOME page and most other pages has four clickable links: HELP – CONTACT US – CASES – HOME.  Deeper inside the web site are numerous “cases” of child abuse that are accessed by clicking on the CASES link in the HOME page menu.  However, as of 29 June 2012 the links for some cases don’t work at all (for example: “CASES PAGE 3”).  More importantly, several of the CASES links lead to pages where the menu at the top of the new page has only three clickable links: HANDRAHAN – HELP – CONTACT US.  This shows the clear intent of the web site.

Naturally, the HANDRAHAN link takes you straight to an extensive posting of disinformation exclusively about Lori Handrahan and this is the heart of the web site. The HANDRAHAN page offers an extensive post — unlike all other sections of the site — packed detail after detail of lies and half-truths fabricated by attorney Michael Waxman and his supporters.

Several of Lori Handrahan’s women supporters are also mentioned on the HANDRAHAN page, and these are some of the same women threatened with rape on the May 2012 Facebook thread.

ScreeHANDRAHAN PAGE STEAM -06-29 at 10.22.54 PM.jpg

“For the second straight month,” S.T.E.A.M.’s HANDRAHAN slam begins, “Lori Handrahan has been unanimously selected as the Child Abuser of the Month. Why?”

The answer is that the web site was created solely as a platform to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters, to further confuse the story and cover up the hard truth that Lori’s daughter Mila has allegedly been trafficked with the support of the state of Maine, the Department of Homeland Security and attorney Michael Waxman.

As reported on the Saving Mila Facebook page: Mila is being sexually abused, the abusive father received free lawyer services over several years and the girl is barred from leaving this dangerous situation. Waxman has said many times that his estimated cost for legal services for Mila’s father amounts to around $250,000. To cover up his trafficking of Mila, Waxman has escalated the slander against Lori and his threats to have her committed and jailed.

FACEBOOK RAPE THREATS

“How about this cause and other bitches, take care of your own business and shut the FUCK up!” Jeff Pyle posted on the Waxman post on June 19.  A 1982 graduate of Weston High School (MA) who lives in Colorado, Jeff Pyle then sexually berated the women engaged in the discussion (see below) and threatened to “come back there” to find, rape and sodomize them. The post has now been deleted.

PYLE RAPE Handrahan Screen Shot small.jpg

Alerted on June 20 by one of the protective mothers who has been increasingly harassed by Michael Waxman, I responded:
Ladies, it’s not recommended to spend your time communicating with these ugly men.  As you can see, they are mean and nasty and try to compensate for their weakness by threatening women with sexual and other physical violence. Mr. Pyle – look me up, I can offer several solutions to your problems.”

On June 28, I received a notice from Facebook administration notifying me that I am under investigation for my post (now also removed).  There was no way to respond to the pop-up warning message that appeared when I first logged in to Facebook, and disappeared after, and it is impossible to figure out how to communicate with Facebook to challenge the flagging of my post and inform Facebook about their need to investigate Michael Waxman and the Handrahan case.

Online sexism is rampant, but the problem is systemic and institutionalized sexism and support for domestic violence that arises due to online media’s attempts to be socially friendly and compatible to as many users as possible.  While censoring some people and interests, these social media often end up punishing the victims and supporting the abusers.

Major social networking media — Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google+ and others — have, one way or another, helped to censor Lori and Mila’s story.  The organization Change.org — reputed to be a socially conscious networking entity — still carries a petition created by Michael Waxman the father’s lawyer in Maine, intended to further censor and punish Lori Handrahan.

Facebook makes it impossible to issue a detailed compliant about the hate speech and physical violence threatened by Michael Waxman’s supporter Jeff Pyle.  While the most threatening post by Pyle was removed from the long back-and-forth, the post that I made was also flagged and removed.  Appropriate action by Facebook would include exploring Michael Waxman’s threatening history and behavior toward Lori Handrahan.

It is the same with Change.org.  It seems they will allow a petition by anyone, for anything, no matter that these petition might be created by violent individuals and have violent motives, including harassment.

Media personality Jay Smooth, the host of New York’s longest running hip-hop radio show, WBAI’s Underground Railroad, recently created a video criticizing online sexism and online threats against women.  Smooth was motivated by the recent surge of bullying, abuse and harassment attacks against Anita Sarkeesian whose Feminist Frequency project launched a Kickstarter campaign that came under attack.

“Many abusive men are active online,” comments a chapter organizer for the National Organization for Women (NOW), “and they often jump at the chance to try to intimidate women (especially protective mothers or their supporters) by making vicious and crazy threats, such saying they plan to rape the women, kill them, or otherwise cause them some kind of bodily harm.”

“It’s shocking and very frightening to realize just how many sexist men there are out there — bloggers and vloggers like Anita Sarkeesian often receive hundreds of these types of terrorist threats, almost daily.”

ENDNOTE:

Looking at one of the “human rights” petitions on Change.org that is listed by STEAM as an example of appropriate child abuse groups or movements — We demand changes to child abuse laws and sentencing, we find that the charges called for are suspicious at best and destructive to women at worst.  Most of the petition’s ten points otherwise appear to be reasonable and important suggestions for legislative changes or legislative protocols.  However, note items 6), 9) and 10) on this petition:

6) If a parent has left an abusive partner courts have no right sending a child for anything more then a supervised visit.

Really? What is this petition point actually saying? Courts have no right sending a child back to a protective mother (who has left her abusive partner) for more than a supervised visit? Sounds like the judicial abuse and alleged sexual abuse cases of both Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and Lori Handrahan from Maine, whose children at present are living out a life sentence.

Let’s look at this Change.org “human rights” petition point number 9)

9) In the event a child is claimed to be kidnapped or missing remove the other children in the home immediately place them in foster care.

Really? Does this make sense? Or is it an attempt to criminalize parents — probably the mother will suffer more — for reporting that their child has been kidnapped? Also, there is the question of how removing the other children from the home relates to the typically destructive and often highly profit-driven state foster care systems.  Does this give too much power to the state, an especially scary prospect given the state ‘social services’ and federally funded (Department of Health and Human Services) black holes serving the destructive father’s rights groups in states all over the USA?

The Change.org petition point number 10) is even clearer:

10) If the mother or father are living not wed to someone who is not the childs father or mother and has a known history of violence and the child is harmed or killed the mother should face equal charges for putting her child in danger.

Really? According to everything we have learned about domestic violence and child abuse, it is most often the case that women and children are trapped in abusive relationships and abusive households and fear for their personal safety and their children’s safety on a day-to-day and sometimes minute to minute basis. Women trapped in domestic violence situations by violent fathers are living in constant terror and escape is often considered impossible.  Such facts need to be taken into account and explored during investigations of domestic violence and child abuse/death.

But note that it is “the mother” singled out in this petition point who “should face equal charges” for living not wed to someone who has a known history of violence. This makes no sense, unless it is situated within the aggressive and violent framework of the destructive so-called “father’s rights” movement.

This “human rights” petition is nothing but a movement to give lawyer’s and judges more power to abuse women, especially protective mothers, and their children, by placing them in foster care. (The petition is also written in terrible English.)

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

     Nothing contained in this post or on this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and and especially for my little Julian, could be (mis)construed as “legal advice” of any kind as author of this post is expressly NOT a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner.

  • CENSORSHIP and censorship shall be challenged strongly as censorship, being in breach of, among so many other unlawful acts and omissions, is a violation of sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment u.S Constitutional right to the free exercise of speech, and also to peaceably assemble herein and also to freely exercise whatever religion, if any, that said natural, American u.S “citizen,” “citizen” meaning fo the purposes of this post. conditionally as i, being natural (wo)man, individual, living and corporeal body,  exclusively reserve the right to revoke or rescind the offer at any and all times, inherently “sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence because imbued with the spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD. ;
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.;
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Federa, u.S. Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal,u.S Constitution and its  Bill of Rights, pursuant to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.;
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.;
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and Author will be happy to follow the law and respect your wishes.

Karl Lentz – Know the (Common) Law, Protect Yourself From Their Lies..


Karl Lentz – Know the (Common) Law, Protect Yourself From Their Lies.. (Video)

https://youtu.be/Yrd09qIiqZE

The Richie Allen Show
Published on Dec 10, 2014
Please Help Support The Richie Allen Show

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/th…

http://richieallenshow.com/
Tune in at 8pm GMT

http://www.davidicke.com/radio/player
www.FabRadioInternational.com

Talk Radio Europe on FM

Tune in at 8pm Bst
www.DavidIcke.com
www.FabRadioInternational.com

Talk Radio Europe on FM

Contact The Show

Email Richie@RichieAllenShow.com
Twitter: twitter.com/RichieAllenShow

License
Standard YouTube License

The Richie Allen Show

 

KIDS-FOR-CASH JUDGE LISA MILLARD | CORRUPT TX


KIDS-FOR-CASH JUDGE LISA MILLARD

Judge Lisa A. Millard, 310th Court, Harris County, Texas in Houston Famous Cases: Clifford Hall, the “egg case,” City of Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s same-sex benefits denial case, mother not allowed to speak Spanish to her daughter case, wrongfully institutionalize little Christoper Logan Parks case, little Brittany Corcoran and Mother Nikki Jones Case, Dawn Cooper Case where Again Sold 7-year old Girl to Dangerous Man she Didn’t Know, and of course, the case of my only child, now 8 years old, then only 5, Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom, three years missing, held hostage with “Responsible” “Healthy Marriage Initiated Father” for Bribery

HOW WAS THIS WOMAN, JUDGE LISA A. MILLARD, AND HER ASSOCIATE JUDGE, CONRAD MOREN, IN THE 310TH COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS IN HOUSTON EVER QUALIFIED ABSENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE “CPS CLUSTER COURT”/FAMILY “CIVIL” CASE AFTER CPS ALREADY KIDNAPPED MY ONLY PRIVATE PROPERTY SOMETIMES DECEPTIVELY CONNED “CHILD” BY “STATE OF TEXAS?”

Oh, and look how cozy, the 313th Associate Judge who tried to shake me down and contributed to my false imprisonment because I couldn’t afford him in 2007, the then-appointed by Millard’s 310th court Associate Judge Conrad Moren’s buddy, Stephen Newhouse is involved, too.  Hmmmm.  I think the jury has returned the real verdict on who the real “crazy,” but rich criminals are HERE.

HOW IS THIS NOT A KIDS-FOR-CASH SCAM THAT MIRRORS THAT OF LUZERNE COUNTY WHERE KIDS- FOR -CASH JUDGE MARK CIAVARELLA AND CONAHAN WENT TO A PRISON CELL OF THEIR OWN IN THE US THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IN PENNSYLVANIA?

http://www.hcjpd.org/mission.asp

http://www.cybertipline.com/en_US/archive/documents/risk_factors_parental_abduction.pdf

HELLO, DOWN HERE, BUT YOU’RE INVESTIGATING THE WRONG CORRUPT JUDGE AND PARENTS!


  Home
  Mission Statement
  Juvenile Board
  Juvenile Courts
  Services
  Careers/Internship
  Help for My Child
  Education Services
  Published Reports
  Public Information
  Report TJJD Abuse
  How to Reach US
  Links

 

 

Juvenile Board Members

 

Honorable Ed Emmett, Chairman
Judges:  (as in Judge’s Trials at the New Nuremberg?)
Honorable Bill Burke Honorable Michael Schneider
Honorable John Phillips   Honorable Don Coffey
Honorable Glenn Devlin  Honorable Lisa Millard
Honorable Denise Bradley
Staff:
Thomas D. Brooks, Executive Director
Juvenile Board Agenda – Approved Meeting Dates for 2015 

Burnett Bayland Rehabilitation Center – Cancelled
6500A Chimney Rock Rd
Houston, TX 77081
March 25, 2015 12:00PM

Juvenile Board Meeting 3-25-15Cancelled

Past Meeting Dates

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-25-15 Juvenile Board Meeting 1-28-15
Cancelled-Juvenile Board Meeting 12-17-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 11-19-14
Juvenile Board Meeting 10-22-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 9-24-14
Juvenile Board Meeting 8-27-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 7-23-14
Juvenile Board Meeting 6-25-14 Juvenile Board Meeting 5-28-14
 Juvenile Board Meeting 4-23-14  Juvenile Board Meeting 3-26-14
 Juvenile Board Meeting 1-22-14 Cancelled- Juvenile Board Meeting 12-11-13
 Juvenile Board Meeting 11-20-13  Juvenile Board Meeting 10-23-13
 Juvenile Board Meeting 9-25-13

 Juvenile Board Meeting 8-28-13

 Juvenile Board Meeting 7-24-13 Juvenile Board Meeting 6-26-13
Juvenile Board Meeting 5-22-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 4-24-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 3-27-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-27-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 1-23-13

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-12-12

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 11-14-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 10-24-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 9-26-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 8-22-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 7-25-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 6-27-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 5-23-12

 Juvenile Board Meeting 4-18-12

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 3-28-12

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-22-12

Juvenile Board Meeting 1-25-12

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-14-11

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 11-16-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 10-26-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 9-28-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 8-24-11

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 7-27-11 Juvenile Board Meeting 6-22-11
Juvenile Board Meeting 6-1-11

Cancelled Juvenile Board Meeting 5-25-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 4-27-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 3-23-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 2-16-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 1-26-11

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-15-10

Juvenile Board Meeting 11-17-10
No October 2010 Meeting Juvenile Board Meeting 09-22-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 08-25-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 07-28-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 06-15-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 06-02-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 05-26-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 05-20-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 04-28-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 03-24-10
Juvenile Board Meeting 02-24-10 Juvenile Board Meeting 01-27-10

Juvenile Board Meeting 12-16-09

Special Juvenile Board Meeting 11-24-09

 Juvenile Board Agenda 11-18-09

Juvenile Board Agenda 10-28-09
 Juvenile Board Agenda 09-23-09  Juvenile Board Agenda 08-26-09
Juvenile Board Agenda 07-22-09 Juvenile Board Agenda 06-24-09
Juvenile Board Agenda 05-27-09 Juvenile Board Agenda 04-06-09
Juvenile Board CANCELLED for 03-25-09 Juvenile Board Agenda 01-28-09
Juvenile Board Agenda 12-17-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 11-11-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 09-24-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 08-27-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 07-23-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 06-25-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 05-28-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 04-23-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 04-03-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 02-27-08
Juvenile Board Agenda 01-23-08 Juvenile Board Agenda 12-12-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 10-24-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 09-28-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 08-22-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 07-26-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 06-27-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 06-06-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 05-23-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 04-25-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 04-18-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 03-28-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 03-14-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 02-28-07
Juvenile Board Agenda 01-24-07 Juvenile Board Agenda 12-05-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 11-15-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 09-27-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 08-23-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 07-26-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 06-28-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 05-24-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 04-26-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 03-8-06
Juvenile Board Agenda 02-15-06 Juvenile Board Agenda 01-25-06


A Balanced Approach to Juvenile Justice

Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
1200 Congress
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: 713-222-4100

http://texaschildrenscommission.gov/media/393/harriscountyreport.pdf

http://texaschildrenscommission.gov/our-work/training.aspx#PS

MOM HAD NO REASONS TO “COACH” WHISTLE BLOWER KIDS


#BarnetPolice #Cover-Ups #EllaDraper: I had no reasons to coach #WhistleblowerKids

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aCj5pCg3P1s