Several members of a judicial task force suggested yesterday that the time has come for California to find a new way of selecting and retaining trial judges.

The system of direct elections 'gave me an opportunity' to become a judge, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis acknowledged. 'But I do think it is a sleazy process.'

Dumanis made the comment in Burbank during a meeting of the Judicial Council Task Force on Judicial Selection and Retention. The task force is part of the

Statewide Commission for Impartial Courts, which was appointed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George last September.

Dumanis is one of three task force members who came to the bench by winning election to open seats. She won open seats on both the San Diego Municipal Court and the San Diego Superior Court before being elected district attorney in 2002.

The task force chair is Third District Court of Appeal Justice Ronald Robie, who won an open seat on the Sacramento Superior Court in 1980 and was elevated to the Court of Appeal 19 years later. Other members include Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Terry Friedman, who won an open seat in 1994, and David Wesley, who survived an election challenge in 2004.

Robie and Friedman both said they disliked the process.

Friedman, a member of the state Assembly at the time, agreed with Dumanis and others that elections give candidates who could not hope for a gubernatorial appointment the chance to serve. In his own case, he pointed out, it was highly unlikely that a Republican governor would have named a Democratic elected official to the bench.

But although he was 'lucky' enough to prevail, Friedman said, 'it was a terrible process.' He commented that his opponent, Valley attorney John Moriarity, 'ran as if it were a legislative office.'

Friedman offered no details yesterday, but his runoff contest with Moriarity was the most expensive judicial contest in county history to that point. Moriarity criticized Friedman for his liberal politics and membership in the ACLU, and Friedman, while not responding in kind, outspent his opponent, in part by raising money through transfers from Democratic candidates and donations by groups that had supported his legislative campaigns but usually did not involve themselves in judicial races.

Friedman said yesterday that at the time, he feared he would be defeated because he 'chose not to respond politically' to the attacks.

Earlier in the day, state courts Administrative Director William Vickrey made a presentation to the task force based on the system used in Utah, where Vickrey worked before taking up his current post.

In Utah, he explained, judges, both trial and appellate, are appointed by the governor, with the approval of the state Senate, from a list of three to seven candidates nominated by a commission. They then must seek retention by the voters, but prior to the retention election, an evaluation is conducted by the state Judicial Council.

The evaluation includes an independently administered survey of lawyers who have appeared before the judge and are asked to rate his or her performance in 14 categories. In the case of judges who regularly conduct jury trials, jurors are surveyed as well.

In addition to the survey results, judicial participation in judicial education, promptness in deciding cases, and physical and mental fitness are figured into the evaluation, and the results are published in the official ballot pamphlet when the judge faces retention.

The pamphlet also includes an explanation of the system of judicial appointment and retention.

The advantages of the system, Vickrey said, are that it keeps partisanship out of the process, while giving voters information that they can use to come to a reasoned decision.

The model would have to be modified, he acknowledged, for use in California, which has about 10 times as many judicial officers.

One option discussed by the task force was 'triggered retention' a system in which the Judicial Council or some similar body would evaluate judges and determine whether they merited retention. If a candidate failed to obtain the required amount of support within the evaluating body, whether a simple majority or more, the judge would have to take his or her case to the voters.

That and other options for retention elections are to be studied by a smaller group of task force members named yesterday. The group will be chaired by Court of Appeal Justice Walter Croskey of this district’s Div. Three.

Copyright 2008, Metropolitan News Company

The short version: It begins and ends with politics and money; which means control. As with many things though, sex is intertwined.

FamilyLawCourts.com is reporters source, packed with published reports, charts and DOJ stats; all of which reveal, much like indifferent police department personnel of Castle Rock, Colorado, in the case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales; the U.S. Supreme Court demonstrated judicial indifference in the murder of three innocent little girls; women and children are not afforded the constitutional right to be safe.

As is repeatedly demonstrated no matter which agency does not do their job; abuse will not end until the one can find an impartial court willing to address misogyny. (And good luck with that.)

A quick review of reports of rapes at military recruitment centers or the Air Force Academy, demonstrate every day life in America. Misogyny remains in our culture every bit as much as Third World countries condoning 'honor' killings, and why women have problems in Family Court.

This include Family Court; the Public Relations phrase for the divorce industry, a litigation machine.

Order to a visitation monitors? Click on, "Ongoing Bias" section; to learn about yet another cottage industry within an industry; as the lobbyists for the California Marriage and Family Therapists lobby for SB 1031, mandatory "Educational" counseling, within Sixty days of filing for divorce.

Briefly, the business of the State is to micro-manage the life of anyone coming before them. It's not personal, doing so allows the State a bigger slice of the State Budget pie, not to mention access to State and Federal monies through grant applicatons vowing to end, "Domestic violence."

Although children represent the meal ticket for court budget requests, (and ancillary occupations), judges find them, well, bothersome. Most refuse to speak to them directly, but refer to anyone willing..hence increased employment opportunities. After all, it's about business; and the business of family law court, is business.

The good news is in Crawford vs. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court decided children's voices could be heard. We hope this trickles down to Family Court.

Children may have to testify in court A Supreme Court decision means young victims might have to confront defendants. By Sherri M. Owens | Sentinel Staff Writer Posted January 17, 2005 TAVARES -- Jurors watched the 7-year-old witness twist and turn in the swivel chair, her feet barely touching the floor. In between fidgeting, she stole long glances at defendant Christopher Marles, the man she said had given her "a bad touch" two years ago. "Did you tell anyone else what happened?" Assistant State Attorney Jonathan Olson asked her Thursday. "My mama told me not to," the girl answered. But, in fact, she would have to tell many people what happened -- a doctor, detectives, lawyers, jurors and a judge. Because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year, she would have to repeat all the details with the accused watching her in the courtroom. The court's decision in Crawford v. State of Washington emphasizes a criminal defendant's right to confront his accusers -- even when the accuser is a child. The ruling has sparked debate among those who say it could traumatize children and damage prosecutors' cases, and those who say the decision helps ensure a fair trial for those charged with crimes. Before the March ruling, a child could give a videotaped statement to professionals trained in forensic interviews. That tape then could be played in court as sworn testimony, sparing the child the potential trauma of testifying in person. Florida law says such an out-of-court statement from a child age 11 or younger is admissible as long as the judge finds that the statement is reliable. That statute says such a child can be deemed "unavailable as a witness" if the judge decides the child's participation in the trial could result in "severe emotional or mental harm." Some lawyers say the Crawford ruling could nullify that part of the state law, but for now, the meaning of the high court's decision is open to the interpretation of judges. Because of the ruling, prosecutor Olson in Tavares decided to put the child on the stand, in addition to showing the jury her videotaped statement. "I never want to give a defendant an appealable issue," he said. Using the Crawford ruling, defense lawyer Mark Germain challenged the tape anyway. He argued that the tape should not be admitted because the defendant was not present when it was made. The judge overruled the argument, but Olson said he expects an appeal based on it. Supporters of the high court's decision say it upholds a protection guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, which says that the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. To bring in out-of-court statements without the speaker testifying in person "is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation," U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. That means that more often than not, all victims -- regardless of their age -- will have to speak up in open court, said Ric Ridgway, chief assistant state attorney in the 5th Judicial Circuit. The circuit is made up of Lake, Marion, Sumter, Citrus and Hernando counties. "Those videotaped statements are almost always not going to be admissible" on their own, Ridgway said. "Crawford really restricted that." Ridgway said the ruling could hurt the prosecution because youngsters are not always good witnesses. "It's amazing the number of adults unwilling to sit in an open courtroom and describe what happened to them," he said. "With young children, it's even harder." Child advocates have similar concerns. "This potentially hurts children and cases," said Jamie Barrett, clinical supervisor at the Children's Advocacy Center in Leesburg. The center provides counseling and conducts interviews of abused children for use as evidence. Barrett said prosecutors have to consider the strength of their case -- including how the victim will respond on the witness stand -- before deciding to take the case to trial. "If the child is not a strong witness and not very verbal, the prosecutor may decide not to pursue it," she said.

Not everyone agrees that the ruling is bad for children.

Bonnie Russell, of California, is founder of FamilyLawCourts.com, an organization she created out of her frustration with the judicial system. She said having child victims tell their stories in open court "is an important part of the healing process" and can empower them, especially when they see that their testimony leads to a conviction, as in the Marles case in Tavares. The 29-year-old was convicted Friday of sexual battery against a child.

"It is critical that they speak for themselves," she said. "Eventually, they will come to see that as their proudest, strongest moment."

Defense lawyers support the ruling, too.

Bob Wesley, public defender in Orange and Osceola counties, said it had become cumbersome for courts to determine the reliability of out-of-court comments and then determine when those statements could be admitted.

"The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of confrontation," he said. "The Constitution is one-size-fits-all and doesn't make exceptions for tender years."

Sadly, is also frequently about misogyny, upfront or disguised. East coast, west coast, and points in between, judges freely exercise, Bias in the extreme

One San Diego woman, typical of litigants across the country, expressed wonderment in why she bothered to go to court at all.
Keep coming back, we won't address your concerns, but keep coming back"

To begin:

A license to practice law, After pleading guilty to molesting kids

Judges

kids speaking out

more kids

Scam visitation centers

Really bad judges

How it Really works

Why it won�t be fixed

From Texas judge, Craig Fowler, filmed playing computer solitaire during a custody hearing, to outright judicial abuse, what most are shocked to learn, (have we not learned ANYTHING from Catholic Church officials?): the abuser often gets custody. Of course whack job decisions spark outrage, appeals and, voila, more litigation. As systems go, it's perfect.

Now you're catching on

Ask how many demonstrations of misogyny is necesary before one realizes being a woman in America and any country, is dangerous. Fortunately not all police feel this way, but it's good to know the sheer numbers of police who do

Whatever happened to Psych evals?"

Civil and criminal courts are about the resolution of an issue or crime. Family law is about the divorce industry, and often the Scene of crime.

Again, when parents realize children are the meal ticket for the court's budget requests, and ancillary occupations to the divorce industry; perhaps they'll abandon the courts.

Returning to California, and Judges killing kids.
Judge Bradford was responsible for the death of this child but "No accountability, keeping the woman's surviving son from her another thirty months.

At least H&HS sent a condolence letter, at, I guess we were wrong. But the Judge, refusing to admit error, put the mother through another Thirty months of torture, by keeping her healthy son from her, saying then she must have neglected him while caring for the child the Court determined, until his death just 12 short days, was not sick.

That said, one can be happily married and Still run afoul with the law, sitting in your living room, as this Court Opinion demonstrates, Hey, Is San Diego In America?

which could have been a set up for a later adoption...Grab the kids - - the State is looking for money"

Check the Stats

Killing the woman who won't be the girlfriend"

Paying particular attention to items four, five and especially, Thirteen, on Fifty reasons to stay with an abuser, or How do you spell misogyny?"

Beat your ex-spouse? Find yourself out of a job when you wind up in jail? No Problem! California Family law judges, petitioned by out of work criminals, award spousal support. Judges thinking that's a good idea, prompted passage of Sentall Bill 1221.

How many demonstrations of misogyny are needed?

2000
Although her father was a famous civil rights attorney, it was a long time before the San Francisco Daily Journal listened to,One girl's nightmare"

2001
Forget it. We told you, kids don't count.

Michigan says, Hey, we just Told you...It Ain't Working"

Generally unknown facts surrounding Family law.

1. Family Law is the public relations term used to describe the divorce industry. The largest fuel source for the divorce industry are those individuals who, do not know this, and those who refuse to believe the obvious.

2. There is no such thing as an unbiased judge, but

A really bad judge is undeniably, an excellent business asset for the community. Why?

Bad rulings ensures continued litigation�.i.e. more litigation.

Addressing the myth surrounding a lack of bias, Russell Engler, writing in the April, 1999, issue of Fordham Law Review, cited national studies showing that 80 percent or more of family law cases nationwide involve at least one pro se litigant.

The article continues, tellingly,

"The absence of counsel has a dramatic effect on the outcome of the proceedings. A system that routinely favors parties with lawyers over parties without, regardless of the merits of the case, cannot be viewed as impartial."

Parents able to demonstrate their children's best interests and their financial resources are only served when they, if for the last time, approach the end of their union in a way that gives full weight to all family members.

Just as people first date and decide the government should only be involved when they marry, couples ending a relationship should, decide how to part, and with the assistance of a mutually trusted, third party, work out the details. Then ask a judge to sign their agreed upon stipulation.

Once the state is involved, occupations ancillary to the divorce industry come into play. They exist not to protect the children, but for their own financial needs.

Key among these occupations, as well as continued governmental interference in families is in the form of "supervised visitation."

Therefore, we recommend, based on the length of the marriage, and the degree of commitment people have in protecting their children, alternatives in which both parties might place their trust. These alternatives could range from friends, to clergy, or tax specialists and accountants, trusted by each party.

If need be, we will recommend certain attorneys, only after all other efforts haven't brought a workable plan to fruition. Conversely, we'll out the bad ones, as the State Bar is designed to give every disreputable attorney years of leeway, before acting to curb crimes committed upon those who trust the attorneys to provide them assistance.

Checking attorneys

Our concern is based on the history of the State Bar.

The State Bar doesn't make every reprimand public, to protect the guilty. Likewise, the State Bar Court is aware attorneys suspended from the practice law, continue to practice law, on the unsuspecting public.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Navigation: