March 8, 2014 § Leave a comment
Nebraska high court again rules father’s consent necessary for adoption
For a second time, the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that a father who was intentionally misled about the birth of his child can stop the baby’s adoption.
In a ruling Friday, the state’s high court said the consent of the father, listed in court documents as Jeremiah J., is required by state law for the child to be put up for adoption. Further, the high court said the child’s mother, identified as Dakota D., failed to prove Jeremiah met any of the exceptions for consent because she did not show he had abandoned her or the child or that he would be an unfit parent.
Jeremiah learned in June 2011 that Dakota, his ex-girlfriend, was pregnant. Five months later, he was contacted by an adoption agency caseworker who told him he had been identified as the baby’s father and that Dakota planned to put the baby, due Feb. 18, 2012, up for adoption, according to court documents. Jeremiah told the caseworker he did not want that, then tried many times to reach Dakota, but she did not return his calls, records say.
The child was born Feb. 9, but Jeremiah was not told of the birth. He contacted Dakota on Feb. 13, but she did not tell him the baby had been born. Jeremiah also repeatedly called the hospital and caseworker to try to learn of the birth, but they refused to tell him, citing privacy policies. The adoption was put on hold after Jeremiah filed his appeal.
Dakota later testified in court that she did not tell Jeremiah of the child’s birth because she did not want him to know about it during the five days he had to object to the adoption.
A Hall County court ruled in the mother’s favor, saying Jeremiah could have hired an attorney sooner, but the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed that ruling last year, noting the mother’s deception. The lower court then ruled in Jeremiah’s favor, and Dakota appealed, arguing he is not a fit parent because he has an unstable work history, has used drugs and has a criminal record, among other things.
She also argued that Jeremiah neglected the child after she was born, and did not provide financial support for her or the child.
But the state’s high court rejected those arguments Friday, saying Jeremiah’s criminal record consisted of misdemeanor convictions as a teen. The court also noted that Jeremiah has denied any drug use, and that he has a stable job paying more than $12 an hour.
“And in any event, low income or an unstable job history does not alone establish parental unfitness,” Nebraska Supreme Court Justice Michael McCormack wrote for the court.
The high court also rejected arguments that Jeremiah did not provide financial support.
“Dakota clearly does not want to have Jeremiah in the life of the child, and she chose to not provide Jeremiah with a fair opportunity to offer financial support,” McCormack wrote.
Jeremiah’s attorney, Mark Porto of Grand Island, said the next step will be to file a paternity action in an effort to establish custody and visitation issues.
“He’s thrilled that he’ll be able to be a part of his daughter’s life,” Porto said.
An attorney for Dakota did not immediately return a message left Friday.
Power of FOIA every meeting of public officials or state actors that posted or a special is all good to ask for info.
January 20, 2014 § Leave a comment
Aldermen’s texts, tweets during council meetings are ‘public records’
Put your phone down as soon as the meeting starts, a lawyer for local officials counsels his clients in the wake of City of Champaign v. Lisa Madigan.
In a decision that bolsters the strength and lengthens the reach of Illinois’ sunshine laws, an appellate court ruled that messages sent by aldermen on their personal electronic devices during a council meeting are “public records” and are subject to disclosure if they pertain to public business.
In City of Champaign v. Lisa Madigan, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662, a unanimous panel of the fourth district appellate court held that a municipality is required to disclose electronic communications between aldermen during a city council meeting if those texts, tweets, or e-mails were about city business, even if the communications were created on, sent by, or stored in the aldermen’s private phones or computers.
“To hold otherwise would allow members of a public body, convened as a public body, to subvert the Open Meetings Act and [Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)] requirements simply by communicating about city business during a city council meeting on a personal electronic device,” Justice M. Carol Pope wrote for the appellate panel.
Public business on private devices
The case began when a reporter from The News-Gazette attended a public meeting of the Champaign City Council and noticed some aldermen using their personal cell phones and other electronic devices to send messages during the meeting. Curious about the contents of those messages, the reporter submitted a FOIA request to the city, seeking copies of: “All electronic communications, including cellphone text messages, sent and received by members of the city council and the mayor during the city council meetings…. Please note that this request applies both to city-issued and personal cellphones, city-issued or personal email addresses, and Twitter accounts.”
The city conceded that “there were electronic communications [that] would be responsive to [the reporter’s] request if they were required to be produced,” but the FOIA officer refused to produce any such documents, claiming instead that they did not meet FOIA’s definition of “public records” and that the individual members of the city council did not meet the definition of a “public body.”
The appellate court, however, disagreed. The court noted that section 2(c) of FOIA defines “public record” as documents “pertaining to the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared by or for, or having been or being used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of any public body.”
The court further held that “public business” is an element of a public record, and public business can be easily summed up as “business or community interests as opposed to private affairs.”
Since the city had acknowledged that at least some of the requested records pertained to public business, and since the reporter conceded he was not seeking disclosure of any private affairs, the court was left with the issue of whether the individual aldermen constituted a “public body,” and whether the records created and stored on their personal devices were “in the possession of, or under the control of any public body.”
After analyzing prior appellate decisions, the fourth district held that an individual alderman is not a “public body” while acting alone, but is an integral component of a public body while acting in unison in the midst of a meeting of the entire board or council.
“Under this interpretation, a message from a constituent ‘pertaining to the transaction of public business’ received at home by an individual city council member on his personal electronic device would not be subject to FOIA,” the court explained. “However, that communication would be subject to FOIA if it was forwarded to enough members of the city council to constitute a quorum for that specific body, regardless of whether a personal electronic device, as opposed to a publicly issued electronic device, was used.”
Similarly, if the communications were created in the midst of a council meeting, or a meeting of any other public body, such communications would be subject to FOIA because the individual members were, at that time, acting together as the public body. When the individual members are acting as a public body, the court held that all records stored on their personal electronic devices are, as a matter of law, in the possession and control of the public body and must be disclosed if the records pertain to public business.
“For the reasons stated, communications ‘pertaining to public business’ and sent to and from individual city council member’s personal electronic devices during the time city council meetings (and study sessions) were convened should be turned over to the City’s FOIA officer for review of what information, if any, should be…provided to [the FOIA requester].”
A duty to store personal texts, emails?
This holding appears to place a duty on elected officials to provide copies to the head of the public body (or its FOIA officer) of all documents stored on their personal computers and phones that are related to public business and that were either created during a meeting of the public body, or that were distributed to at least a quorum of its members.
However, Bollingbrook-based local-government attorney John M. O’Driscoll, a partner with Tressler LLP, said the Champaign decision raises more questions than it answers, and all governmental bodies throughout the state should take a close look at their local practices and ordinances to make sure they are complying with the sunshine laws without also putting themselves at risk of having to disclose communications they intended to remain private.
“Everybody understands and appreciates the need for transparency in government, but trying to implement that in a fair and reasonable way is a difficult thing to do, especially with advancements in technology,” O’Driscoll said. “With my [village] trustees, I tell them to put their phone down and don’t touch it as soon as the meeting starts – it’s not worth the aggravation. But that can be a problem sometimes, because people are addicted to these devices.”
O’Driscoll said responding to FOIA requests that involve electronic communications has become “no easy task,” and the Champaign decision is only one step towards providing FOIA officers with the information they need to properly perform their duties. There will be future court decisions, O’Driscoll said, dealing with specific scenarios on a case-by-case basis.
“For example, consider a message that was sent before the meeting started but had an attachment that slowed the delivery until after the meeting started. How would that be treated?” he said.
The Champaign court didn’t have all the answers, but it did provide some advice for elected officials that echoes what O’Driscoll has been telling his governmental clients.
“We would encourage local municipalities to consider promulgating their own rules prohibiting city council members from using their personal electronic devices during city council meetings,” the court said.
Adam W. Lasker <email@example.com> is a lawyer in the Chicago office of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCanni & Krafthefer.
December 2013 Lawpulse
January 20, 2014 § Leave a comment
BEFORE YOU STEP ONE FOOT INTO FAMILY COURT – READ THIS!
A colleague of mine, Anne Stevenson, recently testified before the Connecticut legislature on behalf of good parents and ethical court employees who feared retribution if they spoke up themselves against the corruption, fraud and shady deals in Connecticut’s family court system.
The content of her testimony is critically important, and not widely understood, so I agreed to post it here to provide folks with a better understanding of how the “divorce industry” in Connecticut is ruining families financially, and subjecting children to dangerous custody arrangements.
Her proposed changes for reform, set forth below, were provided to the Connecticut legislature but are applicable to other states as well because the problems in Connecticut are systemic in American family courts.
(1) Court appointments for mental health services should be made with due preference given to providers who accept the parent’s insurance. Parents are too often ordered to obtain mental health services from providers who do not accept their insurance. This forces parents to pay out of pocket, leaving many literally bankrupt.
Some of the cases involve insurance fraud and the deliberate misdiagnosis of parents as having mental illnesses when they are perfectly healthy, and prescribing medicine and treatments the patient does not need.
(2) GALs and court personnel should have to submit statements of financial interest, just like the ones judge’s must fill out every year. These statements should be provided to the litigants prior to a GAL’s appointment or assignment to a case, and published on the Judicial Branch’s website (alongside the Judge’s statements of financial interest). This way, parents and professionals alike can avert conflicts of interest before they have a chance to affect the integrity of a case.
(3) Courts should track the number of assignments each family court industry professional (GAL, expert, visitation supervisors, etc.) receives, and make that information available to the public on the Judicial Branch’s website. GAL caseloads are not accurately reported or tracked according to the attorney’s vendor number, as required by law. Moreover, appointments of GALs and other professionals are not trackable in the current system. All vendors appointed and assigned to cases need to be assigned vendor numbers and tracked the same way attorneys are tracked, and the information must be made available to the public.
(4) Task Force panels should be created to collect data about the problem of industry professionals misusing the system, and appropriate cases should be referred to appropriate professional oversight authorities. Many parents testified in Connecticut that they were victims of fraud. They had their life savings, their children, their personal safety, their employment destroyed due to unethical professionals assigned to their case who created problems they could then profitably “solve” in what sounded like false billing scams and extortion. Parents also testified that despite having filed formal complaints against the various professionals to oversight boards, their complaints were thrown out without any meaningful investigation. The names of court-appointed “favorites” came up over and over again. A task force in every state should be created to obtain statistics on how many complaints are filed against court “favorites” and whether oversight authorities like professional mental health licensing boards, Judicial Review Commissions and Board of Bar Overseers are effectively responding to the complaints.
(5) The Judicial Branch should get out of the GAL training business. Many GALs are “certified” using the Judicial Branch’s FREE AFCC training program. States should not be spending tax dollars training private attorneys and psychologists to be “certified” as GALs who are then effectively “supervised” by the Judicial Branch. In Connecticut, such certification practices have led to harmful results in part because there is no “decertification” process to prevent substandard actions that hurt families. While judges have authority to sanction GALs, no GAL has ever been sanctioned for misconduct in Connecticut despite countless reports of misconduct and poor decision-making
Training and oversight of GALs (and supervised visitation professionals) should be removed from the authority of the Judicial Branch.
(6) GALs and Supervised Visitation professionals need formal training with accreditation from public health and education agencies. GALs and supervised visitation professionals oversee vulnerable families, many of which include victims of violent crimes. In Connecticut, you cannot represent children as an attorney unless you complete 20+ years of formal education, plus various exams and accreditation reviews. In fact, you cannot run a daycare center without passing various exams and receiving accreditation from agencies such as the Department of Public Health, which then provides oversight and continuing education, etc.
But when victims of violent crimes and abuse come to family court, there are no standards whatsoever to ensure that the professionals making decisions about children are similarly experienced and capable of acting in children’s best interests.
Dangerous criminals are allowed to serve as visitation supervisors and even GALs and judges have authority to appoint them to positions where their actions and decisions threaten the well-being of children.
There is no accreditation, no security for children and no place to file a complaint when parents get ripped off or the untrained professional provides false or misleading statements to the court, or provides inadequate services.
(7) Courts need to track how often offenders obtain custody when an allegation of violent crime is raised or when a restraining order is in place. There is much dispute about the frequency with which abusers win custody of their victims, but one thing is certain: Courts often place the parental and property rights of offenders seeking control and ownership of victims over the rights of children to be safe. Decisions often rest on the recommendations of family court industry professionals who earn a lot of money off the endless [sometime inconclusive] assessments and billable hours they purport to spend in the name of “advocacy,” “investigation” and mental health services.
One man in Connecticut was labeled a “jealous ex” by family services when he requested information concerning his children’s whereabouts and the identity of individuals who were caring for them. His ex-wife’s new boyfriend was subsequently arrested for brutally murdering his son.
Other testimony included a mom who read from police reports which explaining how her ex was arrested for various violent crimes, with multiple weapons, and that police had to taser him to subdue him because he was so rageful. She showed pictures her ex had taken of her young daughters naked in suggestive poses with naked grown men, which he allegedly posted on a website. Although the man submitted written testimony admitting he had done this, the GAL did not refer the case for prosecution after concluding that the photos were “art.” The GAL then blamed the victims for reporting the matter, and fought to help the offender get custody and overnight visits with his daughters.
Another woman described how when she sought treatment for injuries her son allegedly sustained at his father’s hands during a brutal rape (confirmed later by medical professionals), the judge gave the father sole custody and revoked the mother’s rights even though there was no finding that the other was unfit or that she had abused or neglected her child. After paying out over $1 million in legal expenses, the mom was left without sufficient funds to purchase her parenting time and has not seen her child [who remains with the alleged perpetrator] in nearly 2 years.
(8) CSSD should no longer accept grants requiring it to incentivize decision-makers to remove children from a fit parent’s home and place children with identified predators. Many parents testified about court decisions that arbitrarily revoked their custody rights, only to have the family court industry professionals then effectively “sell” them back their parenting time back in what one man called a “pay per view” racket, where good parents could only visit with their children if they paid for therapy, assessments, court dates, and supervised visitation programs prescribed by the courts.
(9) CSSD should no longer accept grants requiring it to arbitrarily discriminate against parents on the basis of gender or marital status.
Testimony in Connecticut revealed many problematic CSSD programs funded by HHS Access and Visitation, VAWA, and Responsible Fatherhood grants. If you look at the grant applications and MOA for the Fatherhood program, for example, you can see that state officials sign agreements with several other State agencies, INCLUDING THE DEPT OF CORRECTIONS AND DEPT OF PAROLE, to help dangerous offenders obtain custody. In a section of the grant reports from Connecticut labeled “Problem Solving Court,” CSSD is clearly working overtime to help drug addicts, violent offenders, and violent parents with serious mental illnesses get custody of victimized children.
Testimony also detailed the way that assessments and recommendations made by CSSD about parenting plans were often defective, and placed children in profitably dangerous homes without due consideration for their well-being. The stated purpose of these grants is to help good fathers, but the funding incentives create dangerous conditions for kids because the grant money is intended to provide even incarcerated prisoners with “technical assistance” so they can obtain visitation rights, avoid criminal penalties and seek “reunification” therapy with children they are not fit to be around.
The infamous Connecticut murderer Joshua Komisarjevsky was a beneficiary of misguided funding incentives when he obtained sole custody of his daughter despite the fact that he was a drug addict on parole and wore a GPS bracelet to the custody hearing. His parole records detail the ways the Dept. of Corrections was encouraging him to sue for custody and helping him obtain resources to assist him with his case. The Hartford Courant reported that Komisarjevsky’s case was approved by Family Services as an appropriate candidate for “Conflict Resolution” in family court, (thus allowing the flow of grant monies) as if the guy was no different than a bickering parent. A few weeks after obtaining custody of his daughter, he murdered the Petit family after raping 11-year-old Michaela.
Another distraught parent testified the judge in his case repeatedly refused to enforce orders to facilitate his parenting time. The GAL withheld his son’s education records from him, and the court was initially ineffective at protecting his parental rights to see his son’s file. When he finally received a copy of the records, he learned that an accused prolific pedophile priest naed Richard McGann was on the list of adults approved to pick up his son from school—but he, the father, was not. The man hasn’t seen his son in years.
A national non-profit that advocates for priest abuse victims, SNAP, discovered McGann’s whereabouts and reported to DPH that the guy was living at a day care center and that the archdiocese had suspended McGann from the priesthood and paid out “a substantial amount” in connection with allegations McGann repeatedly raped and exploited children during his tenure as a priest.
While the Fatherhood grant agreement requires DPH to work on behalf of “fit” fathers, the system appears to be working more effectively on behalf of predators like McGann, which makes sense given that the grant money can only be justified if offenders and noncustodial parents are able to increase their time with children.
(10) Courts should not be contracting with the AFCC, and State workers who are running it should be fired. State Judicial Branch employees should not be using their offices and taxpayer money to run a private trade association that promotes the family court industry and the “collaborative efforts” of the AFCC professionals who do business in their courtrooms. Based on the number of complaints about GALs alone, the GAL trainings should not be allowed to use an AFCC curriculum, and the judicial branch should not be allowed to contract with AFCC to set up family court services.
Testimony included shocking stories about judges collaborating with certain attorneys and psychologists and effectively operating a private trade association for family court professionals from their state offices, and funding it with the money allocated by the government to family courts which are supposed to HELP families, not FUND an industry. The documents filed with the Sec. of State in Connecticut showed that Judicial Branch employees were listed as directors and officers of entities benefitting form the disbursement of these grant monies.
Brave parents in Connecticut testified about their concerns regarding the apparent “collusion” between AFCC leaders and family court professionals. Many testified that AFCC leaders and members do not disclose their conflict of interest to the families whose cases they influence, and because the AFCC leaders are State employees promoting the private industry complained of, this creates a disincentive to discipline any AFCC members or to even acknowledge there is a problem. They do not tell litigants, for example, that they are in business together. Who could possibly hope to have a judge hold AFCC accountable for a conflict of interest when the courts directly benefit from the conflict?
In addition to testimony about the AFCC’s involvement with GALs, many people testified that Family Services’ screening intake assessments were defective because they failed to accurately discern between fit loving parents and violent offenders who are not.
Important testimony on that point can be found here:
The list of AFCC affiliates can be found here:
You can read up on AFCC’s history in the Connecticut courts below. Please note that the old newsletters show that in many cases, CSSD administrators who served as AFCC officers were raising money for the AFCC from the public and family court industry professionals with instructions to mail that funding directly to their Judicial Branch offices during times when the corporation was not registered to do business in Connecticut. These administrators oversee HHS Access and Visitation programs, VAWA, and Responsible Fatherhood programs and their funding.
You can also read about how CSSD came to hire the AFCC: The attached newsletters show that:
(a) In 2001, CSSD director Robert Tompkins received an award from AFCC for his outstanding member contributions.
(b) In 2002, Grant sat on the AFCC’s Board of Directors.
In 2002, CSSD awarded the AFCC a [taxpayer funded] contract to overhaul the family court’s case intake protocols and address the court’s federal Access and Visitation program and growing number of “high conflict” cases.
The Family Civil Intake Assessment Project in the Connecticut family courts reports were apparently peddled as “independent research,” a collaboration between disinterested professionals and the researchers from AFCC. The reports can be found here:
You can read up on how CSSD family court personnel allowed their names and time to be used by the AFCC to promote AFCC “task force” activities here:
(11) Complaints about family courts should be referred to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services, for investigation. Testimony in Connecticut included reports of widespread complaints from parents that they were being victimized by fraud and false billing scams, and that they were wrongfully losing custody because they were falsely discredited. Nearly all these parents (who did not know each other and were from all walks of life and geographic areas) had good reputations and voiced the same complaints about the misconduct in their family court cases, but were all treated as liars and unfit parents. By contrast, the State Auditor found that CSSD has misappropriated millions of dollars in family court-related matters, yet no one was discredited and the misappropriation activities were never referred to law enforcement for prosecution.
In the absence of meaningful oversight by the states, federal oversight agencies such as the DHHS and the DOJ must step in and investigate.
The appearance to level the playing field to see children without the financial tormentor other parent
January 1, 2014 § Leave a comment
Short Description: DISSOL: CUSTODY-1ST REFUSAL
Rep. Josh Harms – Jil Tracy – Chad Hays – Naomi D. Jakobsson – Michael J. Zalewski, Linda Chapa LaVia, John M. Cabello, Monique D. Davis, Jim Sacia, Raymond Poe, Lou Lang, Ann Williams, Elgie R. Sims, Jr., Dennis M. Reboletti and André M. Thapedi
(Sen. Ira I. Silverstein – Steven M. Landek, John M. Sullivan, John G. Mulroe, Jason A. Barickman,Kirk W. Dillard, Michael E. Hastings, Daniel Biss, Linda Holmes, Melinda Bush, Michael Noland, Martin A. Sandoval, Toi W. Hutchinson, Pamela J. Althoff, Chapin Rose and Napoleon Harris, III)
|8/16/2013||House||Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0462|
Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
|750 ILCS 5/602.3 new|
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that if the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child and awards joint custody or visitation rights, the court shall find that both parties have the right of first refusal to care for the minor children if the absence of either party is necessary during the party’s normal parenting time. Provides that the use of baby-sitters, family members, or subsequent spouses is secondary to the right of first refusal. Provides that “right of first refusal” means that in the event that either parent intends to leave the minor children for a period of 4 hours or longer, that parent shall first offer the other parent an opportunity for additional time with the children before making other arrangements for the temporary care of the children. Contains provisions concerning the setting of parameters regarding distance, transportation, and time constraints which may make the offering of additional parenting time impractical and therefore not required. Provides that the parent leaving the children with the other parent or with a temporary child care provider shall notify the other parent of the duration of the parenting time or temporary care of the children by other persons. Contains procedural requirements regarding the offering and acceptance of additional parenting time. Provides that the parent exercising additional parenting time shall provide the necessary transportation unless the parties agree otherwise. Provides that the new provisions are enforceable under the Section of the Act concerning visitation abuse. Provides that the right of first refusal shall be terminated upon the termination of custody or visitation rights.
House Floor Amendment No. 1
Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that if the court awards joint custody or visitation rights, the court may consider, consistent with the best interest of the child, whether to award to one or both of the parties the right of first refusal to provide child care for the minor child or children during the other parent’s normal parenting time, unless the need for child care is attributable to an emergency. Provides that “right of first refusal” means that if a party intends to leave the minor child or children with a substitute child-care provider for a significant period of time, that party must first offer the other party an opportunity to personally care for the minor child or children. Provides that the parties may agree to a right of first refusal, but if they do not and the court determines that a right of first refusal is in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider an make provisions in its order for specified considerations relating to the right of first refusal. Provides that the new provisions are enforceable under the Section of the Act concerning visitation abuse. Provides that the right of first refusal are terminated upon the termination of custody or visitation rights.
|2/26/2013||House||Filed with the Clerk by Rep. Josh Harms|
|2/26/2013||House||Referred to Rules Committee|
|3/7/2013||House||Assigned to Judiciary|
|3/8/2013||House||Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Jil Tracy|
|3/8/2013||House||Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Chad Hays|
|3/8/2013||House||Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Naomi D. Jakobsson|
|3/8/2013||House||Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Michael J. Zalewski|
|3/8/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia|
|3/8/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Ron Sandack|
|3/13/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. John M. Cabello|
|3/13/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Monique D. Davis|
|3/15/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Jim Sacia|
|3/15/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Raymond Poe|
|3/19/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Lou Lang|
|3/19/2013||House||Removed Co-Sponsor Rep. Ron Sandack|
|3/20/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Ann Williams|
|3/20/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Elgie R. Sims, Jr.|
|3/20/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Dennis M. Reboletti|
|3/20/2013||House||Added Co-Sponsor Rep. André M. Thapedi|
|3/20/2013||House||Do Pass / Short Debate Judiciary; 016-000-000|
|3/20/2013||House||Placed on Calendar 2nd Reading – Short Debate|
|3/21/2013||House||House Floor Amendment No. 1 Filed with Clerk by Rep. Josh Harms|
|3/21/2013||House||House Floor Amendment No. 1 Referred to Rules Committee|
|3/28/2013||House||House Floor Amendment No. 1 Rules Refers to Judiciary|
|4/10/2013||House||House Floor Amendment No. 1 Recommends Be Adopted Judiciary; 011-000-000|
|4/10/2013||House||Second Reading – Short Debate|
|4/10/2013||House||House Floor Amendment No. 1 Adopted|
|4/10/2013||House||Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading – Short Debate|
|4/12/2013||House||Third Reading – Short Debate – Passed 104-000-000|
|4/12/2013||Senate||Arrive in Senate|
|4/12/2013||Senate||Placed on Calendar Order of First Reading April 16, 2013|
|4/12/2013||Senate||Chief Senate Sponsor Sen. Ira I. Silverstein|
|4/16/2013||Senate||Referred to Assignments|
|4/23/2013||Senate||Assigned to Judiciary|
|4/26/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. John M. Sullivan|
|4/30/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. John G. Mulroe|
|4/30/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Jason A. Barickman|
|5/1/2013||Senate||Do Pass Judiciary; 010-000-000|
|5/1/2013||Senate||Placed on Calendar Order of 2nd Reading May 2, 2013|
|5/2/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Kirk W. Dillard|
|5/2/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Michael E. Hastings|
|5/3/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Daniel Biss|
|5/7/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Chief Co-Sponsor Sen. Steven M. Landek|
|5/8/2013||Senate||Placed on Calendar Order of 3rd Reading May 9, 2013|
|5/9/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Linda Holmes|
|5/9/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Melinda Bush|
|5/9/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Michael Noland|
|5/9/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Martin A. Sandoval|
|5/20/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Toi W. Hutchinson|
|5/20/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Pamela J. Althoff|
|5/20/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Chapin Rose|
|5/22/2013||Senate||Added as Alternate Co-Sponsor Sen. Napoleon Harris, III|
|5/22/2013||Senate||Third Reading – Passed; 057-000-000|
|5/22/2013||House||Passed Both Houses|
|6/19/2013||House||Sent to the Governor|
|8/16/2013||House||Effective Date January 1, 2014|
|8/16/2013||House||Public Act . . . . . . . . . 98-0462|
December 19, 2013 § Leave a comment
How To Deal With A Bad Judge
Revealing Many Ways For Dealing With Bad Judges
This page is informational. We are NOT lawyers and nothing on this page should be construed as legal advice!
“I can state with certainty that if you go against the status quo in Rhode Island and point out wrongdoing of the judiciary they will ruin your legal practice and make it impossible for you to win a case.”
–Quoted by a well known lawyer who was discussing the Rhode Island Judiciary
|You should consider a Judge bad only if they show a pattern of behaving or ruling in a manner that is:
The criteria used in deciding if a judge is bad is NOT how they handle a high profile case or people of influence, but how they handle the poor, prosecutorial misconduct and the unrepresented. Regardless of how bad a Judge is, they will undoubtedly make SOME correct decisions. We consider a Judge bad if they do not FAITHFULLY and CONSISTENTLY adhere to their oath of office and aggressively pursue justice for ALL. Anything less is unacceptable and is the definition of a bad judge. Also see the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law and the article on dismissals of Government cases.
|Bad Judges exist. We all know they do. [See Judges as Criminals?] Very few practicing lawyers are willing or able to expose Bad Judges publicly, for they are at great risk when they must later appear again before the exposed Bad Judge. Exposure of rotten judicial apples offends and embarrasses the entire judiciary. When a lawyer, in diligent pursuit of his client’s interests, dares stand up to Bad Judges, the “system” locks arms, and seeks to punish or suppress the iconoclastic lawyer. The system’s resistance to admitting the existence of a bad judge can be astounding. Yet someone must stand up to challenge this cancer within the Judiciary. Bad Judges need to be weeded out. It is to the fair, competent judges that the following is dedicated.
Before you go before a Judge, try to learn the Judge’s record!
To Change A Judge Before The Trial:
If It Is Impossible To Change A Judge Before Trial:
Dealing With A Judge After A Bad Ruling
Serve Society By Taking Action To Get A Bad Judge Off The Bench.
|only search caught.net|