Judge Sharon Lueras Held Responsible By Mom In Hatchet Death of Child by Phillip Hernandez

March 6, 2014 § Leave a comment

Sacramento Family Court Judge Hon. Sharon A. Lueras Blamed in Hatchet Death of 9-Year-Old Matthew Hernandez

Judge Sharon Lueras Held Responsible By Mom In Hatchet Death of Child by Phillip Hernandez

 

UPDATE: A UC Davis graduate student has started a petition at Change.org to ask the California State Auditor and Commission on Judicial Performance to investigate Judge Sharon Lueras for misconduct in connection with the deaths of Ryder Salmen and Matthew Hernandez. To view the petition, click here.

Jessica Rose Hernandez contends that Sacramento Family Court Judge Sharon A. Lueras is responsible for the Feb. 26 hatchet death of her 9-year-old son Matthew by ex-husband Phillip Hernandez, according to media accounts. Jessica went to court last November to request custody of her two children. At a court hearing before Judge Lueras, the mother of two attempted to introduce evidence, including text messages, to support her assertion that her ex-husband was back on drugs, acting irrationally, and posed a threat to their children. Judge Lueras refused to consider the evidence, and denied the custody change request, according to news reports. “I blame her for Matthew’s death,” Jessica told News10. Jessica did not have an attorney and represented herself in court. Sacramento Family Court watchdogs have long asserted that the court operates a two-track system of justice where members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section and their clients receivepreferential treatment from judgescourt employees and at court hearings, while indigent, unrepresented litigants are treated assecondclass citizens and often prohibited from exercising basic rights, such as introducing or objecting to evidence. Roughly70 percent of family court users do not have a lawyer, according to state statistics.

Click here to continue reading…

 “I Had Never Practiced Family Law”

Supreme Court of California – Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye – Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan – Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard – Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar – Associate Justice Ming W. Chin – Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter – Associate Justice Goodwin Liu – Justice Cantil-Sakauye – California Supreme Court - Judge Sharon Lueras, Phillip Hernandez, Family Court Sacramento, Jessica Hernandez, Matthew Hernandez, Superior Court of California County of Sacramento, Sacramento Family Court, Hatchet Death,
Judge Sharon A. Lueras refused to consider evidence and denied a custody change request made by Jessica Hernandez, according to a News10 report. Ex-husband Phillip Hernandez (L) later used a hatchet to kill 9-year-old Matthew Hernandez.  Source: News10.

At the time of the Hernandez court hearing in November, Judge Lueras was nearing the end of a two-year assignment to family court. It is common knowledge that most judges do not want to be in family court and “grudgingly plod through their family law assignments, paying their dues and biding their time until they can preside over cleaner, less volatile cases,” according to a Daily Journal Sacramento Family Court judge profile. Click here. In 2009, Sacramento County Superior Court Presiding Judge James Mize testified that “[i]t’s difficult to get [judges] to go into family law. It’s difficult to get judges to go there, so that there’s a tradition in a lot of counties to have the newest judge, who is excited about just being a judge period, and you send them to family law because they are willing to do anything.” Click here to read Mize’s testimony. A month after the Hernandez hearing, in a farewell letter to attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, Lueras confessed that when she was assigned to the Family Relations Courthouseshe had no knowledge of family law.

“[I] am sure it is no secret that I did not volunteer for my family law assignment,” the judge wrote in the Family Law Counselor, a newsletter written by and for the Family Law Bar. “In fact, when I was first told that my new assignment would be family law, I was a bit stunned. I had never practiced family law, knew nothing about the subject matter, other than the fact that I have been divorced myself – I had never stepped into the family law courthouse…Coming from a primarily criminal law background, I was accustomed to the black letter law where judges are given some discretion. However, I have never seen the broad discretion that is afforded family law judges. To me this was a monumental responsibility. I did not know if I would be up for the task of always making the right decision and doing the right thing.” 

Lueras closed the letter by thanking the lawyers for putting up with her. “Finally, I want to thank all of the individuals I have met in the past two years. You have put up with a new family law judge and presented her with the most challenging issues she has ever faced and because of this have hopefully made her a better judge,” she said. Click here to view the letter.

The California Rules of Court include Standards for Judicial Administration which govern courts throughout the state. Recognizing the importance of having experienced family court judges, Standard 5.30, subdivision (a), captioned Judicial Assignments to Family Court, directs that

“In a court with a separate family court, the presiding judge of the superior court should assign judges to the family court to serve for a minimum of three years. In selecting judges for family court assignments, the presiding judge should consider, in addition to rule 10.603(c)(1)(A) of the California Rules of Court, the judges prior experience in family law litigation and mediation, as well as whether the judge prefers to serve in a family law department.”

Standard 10.12, Judicial Education for Judicial Officers in Particular Judicial Assignments, emphasizes the importance of both basic and continuing education for judges assigned to hear family law matters. Subdivision (c) of Standard 5.30Family Court Matters, provides

The supervising judge of family court, in consultation with the presiding judge of the superior court should motivate and educate other judges regarding the significance of family court and work to ensure that sufficient judicial officers, court staff, family law facilitators, child custody mediators and evaluators, interpreters, financial resources, and adequate facilities are assigned to the family law court to allow adequate time to hear and decide the matters before it.”

The Judicial Council Advisory Committee Comment to Subdivision (c) of Standard 5.30 reads:

The family court is an integral part of the justice system. Decisions made by family law judges can have significant and lasting impacts on the lives of the parties and their children. The work of the family court has a significant impact on the health of families and ultimately on the strength of the community. The parties deserve to have adequate time to present their cases, and the judges should have the resources they need to enable them to make informed decisions. It is only through the constant exertion of pressure to maintain resources and the continuous education of court-related personnel and administrators that the historic trend to give less priority and provide fewer resources to the family court can be changed.”

Judge Sharon Lueras - Sacramento County Superior Court - Hon. Sharon Lueras Sacramento Family Court - Arnold Schwarzenegger California Governor - Jessica Hernandez - Phillip Hernandez - Matthew Hernandez - Sacramento Bee Andy Furillo Reporter – Sacramento County courts - Sacramento Bee - Joyce Terhaar Editor and Senior Vice President – Deb Anderluh Senior Editor for Investigations and Enterprise – Sacramento Bee - Marjie Lundstrum Reporter-Investigations – Ken Chavez Senior Editor-Local News – Maury Macht Team Leader II-Local News – Kim Minugh Reporter-Crime – Charles Piller Reporter-Investigations – Cynthia Hubert Reporter-Social Services – Sacramento Bee – Tom Knudson Reporter-Investigaions – Denny Walsh Reporter-Federal/State Supreme Courts – Phillip Reese Reporter-Investigations – Anthony Sorci Team Leader-Local News – Steuart Leavenworth Editorial Page Editor – Gary Reed Forum Editor – Dan Morain Senior Editor – Sacramento Bee – Ginger Rutland Associate Editor – Foon Rhee Associate Editor – Brian Blomster Online News Editor –
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Judge Sharon A. Lueras was appointed to the bench by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007. Schwarzenegger was named in the 2010 Worst Governors Report by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Among other charges, Schwarzenegger was faulted for providing “state jobs to friends with dubious qualifications.” Click here. Before her elevation to the bench, Lueras was lead corporations counsel for the California Department of Corporations (2005-07); deputy district attorney for Yolo County (2001-02); deputy district attorney for Sacramento County (1992-2001), a sole practitioner in Sacramento (1991-92); and an associate at Wilcoxen, Callahan, Montgomery & Harbison in Sacramento (1989-91). Judge Lueras graduated from University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law in 1988, and as a judge is paid $169,289 per year. 

Click here for additional coverage of Judge Sharon Lueras.
Click here for our full coverage of the Jessica Hernandez case.
Click here for expanded coverage of the Matthew Hernandez memorial at Google+.

If you found this article useful or informative, and can appreciate the work that went into it, please share it on FacebookTwitter or recommend it on Google+. We’re on Facebook and Google+ as Sacramento Family Court News and Twitter as @SacFamCourtNews. If you have additional information about this subject, or any news tip about Sacramento Family Court send us an email or use our Contact Page.

For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click on the corresponding labels below.

Advertisements

Indiana judge is removed from office for rude conduct, delayed dispositions and retaliation

March 6, 2014 § Leave a comment

JUDICIARY

Indiana judge is removed from office for rude conduct, delayed dispositions and retaliation

By Debra Cassens Weiss

11 hours, 46 minutes ago

The Indiana Supreme Court has removed a Marion County judge from office for “significant judicial misconduct” but is allowing her to continue to practice law.

The court removed Judge Kimberly Brown after three special masters found she committed misconduct alleged in 46 of 47 counts, according to the supreme court opinion (PDF). The Indianapolis Star says Brown is only the third Indiana judge to be permanently banned from the bench in the last 20 years.

At first Brown argued she had bad staffers and had taken steps to correct the problems, but she later apologized and sought a 60-day suspension, according to the story by the Indianapolis Star.

Among the violations cited by the Indiana Supreme Court:

• Brown fired the chief bailiff, apparently because Brown believed that person was providing information to or filing a complaint with ethics regulators. Brown later suggested she fired the chief bailiff for job performance issues, but Brown was unable to be specific in her deposition.

• Brown delayed the release of 10 defendants by failing to complete paperwork and failing to properly train court staff. The delays ranged from one to 22 days. When other judges investigated the delayed releases, Brown sent “a discourteously phrased email.”

• Brown delayed rulings and failed to complete necessary paperwork. In one case, a defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief in 2009, but the matter was never set for a hearing until a new judge took over in 2013. Brown also delayed carrying out orders of the appeals court. In one case, she failed to vacate a judgment of conviction after an appeals court reversed and remanded for a new trial in 2010. The omission was corrected when a new judge took over in 2013.

• Brown removed case files from file drawers and kept them in her locked office, making it difficult to find the files and delaying the processing of pleadings. She often blamed employees with the clerk’s office for missing files that were found in her own office. In one instance, she asked a deputy court clerk whether she blamed Brown for the missing files, and later banned the clerk from her courtroom.

• Brown had a policy of continuing bench trials if she believed they could not be completed by 4 p.m.

• Brown treated some lawyers in a “rude and discourteous manner.” In 2009 she asked supervisors to remove two public defenders from her court, saying they were “too adversarial,” “extremely litigious” and “not aiding in the movement of cases.” She called one lawyer a “moron” and another a “pain in the ass,” she “crassly remarked” about a deputy prosecutor’s weight, and she referred to a PD supervisor as “evil.”

• Brown treated some staff members “discourteously and with hostility,” favoring some staffers over others. She told favored employees that one worker “wears lesbianism on her sleeve,” one was “ghetto fabulous,” and others were mentally ill or in need of increased medication.

A concurring justice, Robert Rucker, said Brown’s misconduct amounted to mismanagement of judicial duties and inappropriate demeanor. He would have given Brown an immediate 60-day suspension without pay, followed by a one-year period of supervised probation. If she failed, she would be removed from office.

 

Egg on judge’s face as sons return home.

March 2, 2014 § Leave a comment

Egg on judge’s face as sons return home

Mrs Justice Laura Harris ruled that two boys should be parted from their mother, but the story has a happy ending

Egg on judge’s face as sons return home

The ruling that affected the boys’ lives was made at London’s High Court Photo: GETTY IMAGES

6:30PM GMT 01 Mar 2014

Twice in the past month I have reported the bizarre story of two boys, aged 14 and 11, who, following a High Court ruling by Mrs Justice Laura Harris, were pulled kicking and screaming from their beds at 7.45 on the morning of Christmas Day by four police officers. They were taken from the respectable, intelligent middle-class mother with whom they had lived happily all their lives, to be handed over to a father who walked out on them 11 years ago, shortly after the younger boy was born.

Last Sunday, I described how, in response to my original article, Judge Harris ordered the publication of her original judgment of December 23, to justify her decision that the boys, against their expressed wishes, must now live with their father. She recognised that it would be a major upheaval for the boys to be uprooted from their school and friends, but was confident that they would soon learn to make a new life, miles away, where they didn’t want to be. She didn’t add that, following this traumatic event, the police had to be called to the father’s house on several occasions, and that the older boy had twice run away to return home to his mother.

Late last Sunday evening, I had a message from the mother to report a remarkable twist to the story. The boys had just been dropped off at her house by the father, who had then driven away without a word.

On Wednesday, I had the pleasure of meeting the mother and her charming sons for lunch. Between discussing with the older boy his passion for palaeontology, I heard something of the events that had led to this amazing turnaround. For once, it seemed, this family had the good fortune to encounter two sensible social workers, one at each end of London, who agreed unanimously that the boys should return to live with their mother.

Where this leaves Mrs Justice Harris we can as yet only guess. But at the moment it seems this nightmarish episode in the family’s life has come to a miraculously happy ending.

Not everyone has equal access to justice. Let’s change that.

March 2, 2014 § Leave a comment

CONTRIBUTORS

Not everyone has equal access to justice. Let’s change that.

By Andrew Mead, Special to the BDN
Posted Feb. 28, 2014, at 5:31 a.m.

Justice Andrew Mead serves on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

Contributed photo
Justice Andrew Mead serves on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

The final phrase of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance is a simple and elegant expression of the core values that have inspired and directed our society since the dawn of our Republic: “With liberty and justice for all.”

The Declaration of Independence introduced the world to the utterly revolutionary concept that all citizens are equal before the law. In the centuries that followed, we have made enormous strides in the effort to make these lofty aspirations a reality. We can take pride in our accomplishments, but this undeniable fact remains: We still have a great distance to go to truly bring the founding fathers’ bold vision to full fruition.

Law brings order to society. In the failed governments of the world, the collapse of the rule of law condemns its citizens to a living hell. With no resort to courts or other legal authorities, violence becomes the only means to resolve disputes. The contender with the greatest ability to impose violence upon others emerges the victor.

As citizens of the United States and the state of Maine, we are confident that our institutions of justice will apply and enforce the rule of law. We are assured that our conflicts and disputes will be resolved peaceably by our courts, in which all citizens may obtain equal justice before the law.

Unfortunately our vision does not always line up with reality.

In order to obtain justice, one must know what the law is and have access to the courts. The law can be daunting, and an average person can easily be discouraged by its breadth and complexity. The prospect of going to court without a firm knowledge of the law or court procedures can be downright overwhelming. It is the assistance of a lawyer that truly makes the process accessible to all.

Unfortunately, many of our residents have no ability to secure the assistance of a lawyer to help them with legal matters. For these individuals, the inability to gain legal assistance produces, for all practical purposes, a denial of access to justice.

We are fortunate to have civil legal service organizations that have strived to offer legal assistance to the disenfranchised in the past. These organizations’ efforts to provide access to justice have produced tangible, widespread benefits for Maine’s families, children, employers, schools and communities.

In addition, as a recent study in North Carolina concluded, the local economy reaps an across-the-board positive impact when access to justice initiatives are undertaken. Sadly, draconian cuts to the funding of civil legal service organizations over the last two decades have threatened to eliminate them altogether.

As a society dedicated to justice for all, we cannot allow that to happen.

The Justice Action Group, a coalition of legal service providers and dedicated institutions and individuals, will sponsor “Access to Justice Day” in Maine on Tuesday, March 4. Events will take place at the State House in Augusta to showcase civil legal service organizations and to reaffirm our commitment to the important goal of access to justice for all.

Please join us, and encourage your legislators to support access to justice in Maine.

Justice Andrew Mead serves on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

 

Similar articles:

The appearance that his tears didn’t go for all the money driven kids,Fake tears–for his OWN kids & grandkids

February 28, 2014 § Leave a comment

‘Kids for Cash’ ex-judge is in tears–for his OWN kids & grandkids

Seeded by Verge of PurgeVIEW ORIGINAL ARTICLE:The Philadelphia Inquirer
Seeded on Wed Feb 5, 2014 3:32 PM

DISCUSS: 33 9 !

Article Photo

For years, Ciavarella, a former Luzerne County Court judge, had defiantly fought charges that he took kickbacks to sentence thousands of young offenders to private juvenile detention centers.

During a moment of reflection while awaiting sentencing for corruption in 2011, Ciavarella broke down, imagining how his own grandchildren would perceive him.

“I would hope that they understand that their grandfather screwed up big-time,” he said, tears welling in his eyes. “And couldn’t be in their life because of it. Kind of tough, if what they get to know is that their grandfather was a scumbucket.”

The conviction of Ciavarella and his fellow Judge Michael T. Conahan ended an infamous chapter in Pennsylvania judicial history, one that led to a wave of changes in the juvenile justice system.

His emotional moment – a rarity for a man proud of his hardened persona – is an equally unrivaled moment, captured in Kids for Cash, a documentary on the scandal directed by Robert May, which will premiere Wednesday at the Kimmel Center. [Performing Arts Center in Philadelphia]

Ciavarella’s remarks come from one of more than a dozen original interviews in the film, offering a nuanced and detailed portrait of those caught up in the scandal that unraveled in 2008.

The film includes interviews with juvenile defendants and their parents; the cofounders of the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center, which worked on behalf of many defendants; Luzerne County’s chief public defender; a reporter from the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader; and the superintendent of the Wilkes-Barre School District.

But the biggest coup, May concedes, was persuading Ciavarella and Conahan to appear on camera.

Both spoke without telling their lawyers, May said – even as Ciavarella was mounting a defense in federal court, and as Conahan was working on a plea deal that ended with his being sentenced to 17 years in prison.

Ciavarella was eventually found guilty of racketeering as well and sentenced to 28 years in prison. He is serving his sentence in Illinois; Conahan is at a Florida prison.

At the time May approached them, around 2009, Ciavarella and Conahan had not been convicted, but they were publicly disgraced – accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the developer of two private juvenile facilities, then concealing the payments in elaborate money-laundering schemes.

Ciavarella, who oversaw Luzerne County’s juvenile court, sent thousands of children to those facilities during his time on the bench, at a rate higher than any other juvenile court judge in the state.

Thus, the scandal became known as “Kids for Cash,” and public outrage swirled nationwide.

May’s approach to the judges was that the media coverage had been “one-sided,” he said in an interview. He told Ciavarella and Conahan that he wanted to hear their side of the story as well.

The result is a 102-minute film that crisscrosses between juveniles and judges – or, as May puts it, “victims and villains.”

Though many families express resentment about the way they were treated by Ciavarella, the former judge is generally unapologetic – accepting fault for concealing payments from the developer, but saying they had no impact on his sentencing decisions.

Conahan, too, says the only issue in his situation was accepting compensation as a judge.

But there are emotional moments for both in the film – Ciavarella while considering what his grandchildren will think, Conahan while discussing why he agreed to his plea deal.

May hopes that footage adds nuance to the overall story and provides audiences with a fuller perspective of all the characters involved.

Marsha Levick, cofounder of the Juvenile Law Center, who fought on behalf of defendants from Ciavarella’s courtroom, was uninspired by the former judges’ words.

She said the film simply demonstrated the continued need to pay great attention to juvenile justice.

“This is a system,” she said, “that can potentially affect all of our children.”

************************************

[from The Philadelphia Inquirer May 27, 2010:]    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100527__Kids_for_cash__tapes_made_public.html?c=r

….a contractor who built the two juvenile detention centers – PA Child Care in Luzerne, and Western PA Child Care in Butler County – funneled more than $2.9 million to the judges between 2003 and 2006. ////

Prosecutors say Mericle paid $997,600 to Ciavarella in 2003 as a finder’s fee for getting him the contract to build the Luzerne detention center. They say Ciavarella told him to give the money to Powell, who in turn wired it in two chunks to the judges.

Thanks to the judges, prosecutors say, the detention centers got a steady flow of business – so Powell and his partner, Zappala, decided to build a second center in Western Pennsylvania. When Mericle won the contract for that facility, prosecutors say, he gave the judges an additional $1 million. The money was wired to a business the judges controlled, Pinnacle Group of Jupiter, Fla., in 2005.

In 2006, Mericle won a third contract, to put an expansion on the original juvenile jail – and the judges got an additional $150,000, prosecutors say.

A FATHER SO HEARTBROKEN ABOUT DAUGHTER BEING HELD AT HOSPITAL AGAINST HIS WILL THAT HE HAS DEFIED A JUDGE’S ORDER TO SPEAK OUT

February 18, 2014 § Leave a comment

A FATHER SO HEARTBROKEN ABOUT DAUGHTER BEING HELD AT HOSPITAL AGAINST HIS WILL THAT HE HAS DEFIED A JUDGE’S ORDER TO SPEAK OUT – HELP FREE JUSTINA!!!
02-18-2014 12:04 am – Liz Klimas – The Blaze
The last time Lou Pelletier spoke with his 15-year-old daughter was Feb. 14 — Valentine’s Day. For this father of four, though, the day held a different meaning for his youngest valentine: It marked one year since she was taken and placed in a psychiatric ward against her parents’ will.

“We need help,” Lou Pelletier told TheBlaze in an exclusive interview, explaining why he made the decision to break a judge’s gag order and talk about the situation.

“I’m trying to save my daughter’s life,” he said.

“While still being able to live,” Jessica, one of Justina’s older sisters, added.

For more than a year, Justina Pelletier has been the center of a battle between her parents, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families and Boston Children’s Hospital, and two controversial medical diagnoses. After her family began speaking out last November about their fight against these major institutions in court, they were placed under a gag order.

Justina’s parents, Linda and Lou, have been fighting against Boston Children’s Hospital and the state’s Department of Children and Families for more than a year, as they believe she needs to be treated for mitochondrial disorder, a diagnosis some doctors disagree with.

Beyond little snippets given outside of court on the many hearings they’ve had, little has been heard from the parents who believe their daughter has mitochondrial disease and the medical facility that says she doesn’t, saying it’s a psychosomatic disorder instead.

But now the Pelletiers are speaking out.

‘MY DAUGHTER IS ABOUT TO BE KIDNAPPED’

When the Pelletiers brought Justina to a Connecticut hospital in February 2013, she was suffering from the flu. As her sister Jessica explained it, people with mitochondrial disease are affected by illnesses, like the flu, in a more pronounced way.

Jessica, 25, is the second-oldest of the Pelletiers’ daughters and has mitochondrial disease herself. The disease can manifest itself in various ways, but at its root, results from a defect in the mitochondria, an organelle inside cells that produces energy. Jessica’s diagnosis was established medically through analysis of the cells of her muscle tissue.

In Justina’s case, a doctor evaluated her symptoms, considered her family history — mitochondrial disease can be inherited — and gave her a clinical diagnosis of the disorder. Under the care of physicians at Tufts Medical Center, Justina was treated for mitochondrial disease.

But when she got the flu and her parents were told she should be transferred to Boston Children’s Hospital, things changed.

As Lou Pelletier explained it, Justina was supposed to be transferred in an ambulance, for insurance purposes, to the Boston hospital, and brought through the emergency room but seen by a gastrointestinal doctor. Instead, upon arriving, he said she was stopped and evaluated by a neurologist, who, Pelletier said, didn’t look at her medical history or contact her other doctors. This doctor, according to Justina’s father, said he thought the illness was all in Justina’s head — that it was somatoform disorder.

The physicians at Boston Children’s Hospital disagreed with her diagnosis of mitochondrial disorder and wanted to take a different approach to her treatment. At first, Lou Pelletier said, “we were game to try a new approach.” But when the hospital laid out their plan to take Justina off all of her mitochondrial and pain medication, her parents balked.

That was Feb. 13, 2013. The next day — Valentine’s Day 2013 — Justina’s parents went to Boston Children’s Hospital with a couple of advocates intending to have her discharged and brought to Tufts. Instead, they were met with security guards and served a 51A, a report of alleged physical or emotional abuse.

Lou said when he saw security showing up, he called 911, thinking that things were not about to go in their favor.

“I told them ‘my daughter is about to be kidnapped by Boston Children’s Hospital,’” he said.

The Pelletiers were accused of overmedicalizing their daughter. Lou Pelletier pointed out that he doesn’t see how having a congenital band removed, her tonsils taken out, procedures to help her have bowel movements — a reoccurring issue for Justina — and following doctor’s orders for prescriptions for mitochondrial disease can be considered overmedicalizing.

Justina was transferred to Boston Children’s Hospital’s Bader 5 psychiatric unit on April 9, 2013. There she was treated for somatoform disorder. According to a document from Boston Children’s given to the Pelletiers, Justina’s treatment included a “behavioral plan […] formulated with input from all relevant disciplines which will day schedule, feeding and functioning plans with a therapeutic approach.” Physical therapy was included as well.

Another measure on the “Guidelines for Care of Justina Pelletier” included that “no diagnostic tests and no new consultations are to be requested unless Justina develops a new or acute process as observed and assessed by the medical team.”

The Pelletier family isn’t necessarily alone in their experience with the hospital. After their case made national headlines, other families began speaking out about the hospital threatening to get DCF involved. Complaints that have been filed since against Bader 5 prompted the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to launch an investigation.

‘I WANT TO HAVE ALL MY GUNS BLAZING’

Lou Pelletier told TheBlaze he used to play “20 questions” on the phone to learn from Justina what was going on in the psych ward on the days they were scheduled to call. Justina also used to sneak little notes to her family in cards she wrote them.

Jessica Pelletier demonstrated how she would fold a flap in cards and write messages in small handwriting underneath. Lou Pelletier said if Justina got caught doing this “she would get tortured,” which he said the hospital called “behavioral modification.”

“That’s what Kim Jong Il’s doing in North Korea, behavior modification. … No, no, no, no. It’s torture,” he said.

The Pelletiers don’t get cards anymore. All they get from Justina now are 20 minutes on the phone every Tuesday, one-hour visits each Friday, and her bracelets, which show her preferences for the colors blue and green. Both Lou and Jessica Pelletier sported several of Justina’s beaded or artistically twisted rubber band bracelets on their wrists.

After several court dates, Justina was moved from Boston Children’s Hospital to another facility in Massachusetts. At the time, Lou Pelletier said “justice maybe prevailed.” But in the hearing following this decision two weeks later, things seemed more grim from the Pelletiers’ perspective. Lou Pelletier said it is not a medical facility. He said it’s a temporary place where she is being held until her treatment going forward can be agreed upon in court.

“Now we go back the 24th, a week from today, and I want to have all my guns blazing. We’re not going to make it much more,” Lou Pelletier said.

“Our family,” Jessica Pelletier said, “I don’t know how we survived this long.”

And they’re not just talking about the “heartbreak” of Justina. The yearlong fight to bring the decisions regarding her medical care back to her parents has taken a toll on the Pelletier family.

—–

THE FAMILY NEEDS YOUR FINANCIAL HELP!

Financially, they’re trying to make ends meet with expensive legal fees. The Pelletiers have a PayPal account connected to http://www.freejustina.com for those wishing to donate to her family’s cause. PLEASE HELP!!!!!!


www.FREEJUSTINA.com

—–

If the decisions regarding Justina’s care are returned to her parents, Lou thinks she needs total rehabilitation, saying that he worries her current state could be “irreversible.”

“She needs physical therapy. She needs to be back on the vitamin cocktail. She needs to be treated for the goddamn diagnosis she had from the beginning,” Lou said. ”I need to save my daughter. If we don’t do something, she is going to die.”

‘SHE NEEDS TO BE THIS COUNTRY’S HERO’

On the Glenn Beck Program Monday night, Lou Pelletier said he and his wife, Linda, continue telling Justina to hang in there.

“I never thought of all my daughters that she would be my hero,” Lou said on TheBlaze TV, telling Beck that he has been amazed by his daughter’s strength, even as he has seen her condition deteriorate. “She needs to be this country’s hero.”
– See more at: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_34867.php#sthash.81WM1tKz.dpuf

The Appearance of machine in action and what a response.

January 26, 2014 § Leave a comment

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

ALDERMAN EDWARD BURKE USES JUDGES AS HIS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Here is a man who authored and orchestrated every Civil Rights Act perpetrated by Judges and engineered Treason offenses violating every provision of the KU KLUX KLAN ACT of 1871 at an innocent man of color.

Alderman Edward Burke has utilized every member of the Democratic Party to help him frame an innocent man of impregnating a woman who was in fact impregnated by her natural biological father who was a Police Officer, this was the second daughter he impregnated;

Alderman Edward Burke used African American Judge R. Morgan Hamilton as she perjured and falsified court documents aided and abbeted in a criminal conspiracy as Burke had a CTA attorney in Ronald Bartkowicz manufactured a warrant against CTA employee Badge 26115 saying he was not an employee to prevent CTA from paying him back wages resulting from his work-related injury because members under the Daley administration stole his wages while off injured on duty;

Because R. Morgan Hamilton was a good servant for her Messiah in Ed Burke he made her a permanent Associate Judge never to be voted for retention on the bench.

William Stewart Boyd was perhaps the slickest deceptive manipulator ever to wear a robe negotiated an Associate judge position out of Edward Burke because he knew I never owed child support and was aware of all criminal acts of the parties who was responsible for framing me kept his mouth shut.

Alderman Edward Burke had appointed legal aid attorney who was the former Senior attorney in legal aid refused to provide me any legal representation saying their were too many judges involved, Burke assigned him to my case where he placed me in Contempt of Court for Allegedly owing child support.

Alderman Edward Burke had access to medical records of my families medical history where therapy was being provided had Donald Jonker to assist him the same DCFS attorney who was responsible helping him take an African American child from her mother.

Alderman Edward Burke orchestrated DCFS to manufacture abuse charges against myself as my daughters therapist (Marcia Ward) provided altered medical records impersonating a Doctor and not a therapist.

Alderman Edward Burke has made it his mission to destroy me and my family at all costs had my sick brother arrested and placed in Cook County jail because the United States Attorney refused to prosecute my brother for allegedly spitting on President Obama’s Secret Service, hew was transported to St. Bernard Hospital spent 2-3 weeks hospitalized, he was not out 3-4 days before he was arrested name placated all over the media.

Rosemary Higgins was in Juvenile court where DCFS lodged bogus charges against my mother for child Lock-out which was not true a lot of irregularities had took place in that case but Judge Higgins ignored them never provided her with a court order, as for myself I had been before her Aunt Lauretta Higgins who refused to address the wrongful Acts of Perjury Fraud etc., Judge Higgins said she had no jurisdiction., the matter was appealed before the 1st Division where her husband Warren D. Wolfson was the Judge Denying every motion presented before the courts.

Rosemary Higgins became the Judge in my brothers case had him locked up for 6 months behind a cell in prison on June 6, 11 two Doctors testified he was unfit to stand trial, initially Public defender was removed from the case, a Shelli Blair (Air Head Public Defender) was assigned when I suggested that a Motion be filed substituting Judges Monday June 10, 2013, her reply, you guys had a lot of bad luck with judges or misfortunes but I assure you she is not with Warren D. Wolfson anymore, my reply, don’t care.

Tuesday June 11, 2013, Theresa Nelson was back on the case, the States Attorney was arguing my brother was unfit for trial mentally, but the Public Defender was arguing he was fit; needless to say Judge Higgins agreed with the States Attorney finding him unfit mentally very smart but the Doctors testimony was to compelling.

Under the present administration of Democrats with the Political Machine they find ways to oppress people of color by whatever means necessary so as to generate revenue for all white attorneys as blacks and Hispanics are used as a means of income for Terrorist running the City.

No white person under any magnitude is subjected to this level of Terrorist treatment in this city.

APPEAL TO THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT

                                                   FIRST DISTRICT
                         FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
                                               CHANCERY DIVISION
________________________________________________________________________
                                                                     )
Joe Louis Lawrence                                      )
                                                                     )                     Trial Court No. 12 M 718911
                 Plaintiff-Appellant                         )                     General No. 13-0058
                                                                     )                     Division No. 1
                                           V.                      )
                                                                     )
Craig Fulton                                                  )                      Hon. Leonard Murray
                                                                     )
                                                                     )
                Defendant- Appellee                     )
                                                                     )
                       MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD/REMAND CRAIG FULTON & ALL RELATED CONSPIRATORS CULPABLE AND CORROBORATED THEIR ROLES IN CRIMINAL ACTS NOTED IN APPELLANT’S UNCHALLENGED AFFIDAVITS INSTANTER
         Now comes Plaintiff-Appellant, Heterosexual, United States Citizen, born and raised Joe Louis Lawrence respectfully moves this court to allow Appellant’s Motion to Supplement Record/Remand et al, in the above entitled cause.
         Reasons in support of this motion are set forth in the attached affidavit.
                                                                                      Respectfully Submitted,
                                                                                         Joe Louis Lawrence
                                                                           By:____________________________
                                                                                         Joe Louis Lawrence
                                                                                            Counsel Pro Se
STATE OF ILLINOIS         )
                                            )
COUNTY OF COOK         )
                                                              AFFIDAVIT
Joe Louis Lawrence being first duly sworn on oath deposes and states as follows:
1.)    I am Joe Louis Lawrence, Counsel Pro Se.
2.)    That on June 2, 3 Craig Fulton was witnessed by neighbors and Police in the neighborhood stealing Appellant’s personal effects from home (10058 South Vernon) where a U haul truck was involved.
3.)    Monday June 4, 2013, Appellant attempted to file a Police report but was informed by the desk Sergeant in order for a crime to be established, Appellant had to first contact the landlord and request all personal effects because he could have moved the possessions into storage;
A.)  Sergeant reviewed Appellant’s court documents and said he had no right removing any of your “sh*t” but before a crime is established, he have to refuse to return all of your possessions;
B.)  Pursuant to the Sergeant’s directive said Notice was texted to Craig Fulton “Craig Fulton consider this proper notice seeking all personal property effects at 10058 South Vernon, You are to inform me where and when to pick up all my property and effects immediately, you have never responded to any pleadings or filed an appearance in the Appellate Court”. Respectfully submitted, Joe Louis
4.)    That Craig Fulton never responded a Police Report was filed (RD# HW 305160) said officers said the court was to be notified and that Detectives would be in contact with the Appellant within 5 days of filing the report;
5.)    That on January 18, 2013, near and around the hours 10:00am and 10:30am Cook County Sheriff were witnessed by Police personnel and neighbors using a Battering Ram forcibly entering the residence of 10058 South Vernon, locking him out of said home with all noticeable personal effects visible;

6.) That because Craig Fulton never legally owned the property but has been very successful with incredible support induced reliance on a number of entities could not access the authority of a licensed and bonded locksmith, to enter the residence  had the Sheriff to act outside their jurisdiction by committing a felony (breaking and entering into a home);

7.)    That this is not the only time judges within the Cook County have acted outside their jurisdiction Judge Bartkowicz (former workman’s compensation attorney with CTA) appointed to case 88 D 079012  issued a Bogus warrant primarily to prevent Appellant from returning back to work with the CTA from a work-related injury, to prevent him from receiving back wages see unlawful1.blogspot.com, Post 7-23-2012 how both judges corroborated their roles in a Criminal Terrorist Civil Rights Conspiracy;
8.)    That Appellant never owed CHILD SUPPORT but certain judges without jurisdiction noted in said Chronology of Unlawful Contempt Charges, see unlawful1.blogspot.com, Post 8-30-2012, how Judges engaged in a plethora of Racist Civil Rights Acts unlawfully incarcerating Appellant for standing up to Racial Injustice;
9.)    That certain Cook County judges, State Judges do not honor the State or Federal laws but exercise fraternal laws of their order demonstrating above the law tactics used their influence and intimidating tactics against certain CTA administrators making sure they did not reinstate Appellant back to work from a work-related injury, see Post 8-9-2012, said Post gives a meticulous account on the heinous deceptive practices Powerful Corrupt white men exhaust oppressing an innocent Appellant simply because of his ethnicity;
10.)    That because Alderman Edward Burke (it is no secret!) is the orchestrator and manipulator of all judges assigned where the Appellant is concerned has manifested a vengeance against him for standing up to the Democratic Political Machine;
11.)    That allegedly under the authority of Alderman Edward Burke Judge George Sculley, Jr.and Leonard Murray ignored every document Appellant has presented to the court demonstrating “FRAUD” “TERRORISM” “CORRUPTION” “TREASON” allowed Craig Fulton and all related Terrorist conspirators to do whatever they desired against an innocent Appellant;
12.)    That on March 5, 2013, Appellant’s Affidavit recorded “That Appellant has been many times denied and ignored by the likes of judge Thomas Hoffman et al., see unlawful1.blogspot.com April 11, 2012 Post how certain judges ignore the laws and act outside their jurisdiction”.
13.)    That Judges under Alderman Edward Burkes control do not honor the laws of the United States Constitution as they engage in Tyranny Acts of Mass Destruction they are America’s Al Qaeda as they commit Acts of Terrorism wearing robes; 
C.)       Properly alleged facts within an affidavit that are not contradicted by counter affidavit are taken as true, despite the existence of contrary averments in the adverse party’s pleadings. Professional Group Travel, Ltd. v. Professional Seminar Consultants Inc., 136 ILL App 3d 1084, 483 N.E. 2d 1291; Buzzard v. Bolger, 117 ILL App 3d 887, 453 N.E. 2d 1129 et al.
D.)       The above is Basic State Law—Alderman Ed Burke lacked an intelligent understanding of Constitutional law; thereby, engaging in a plethora of corrupt Civil Rights violations so as to prove his KINGSHIP over the Democratic Political Machine and cover-up where they are intellectually challenged in the laws!
14.)    Judges under Alderman Burkes authority  openly with vicious arrogance for the laws ignored the United States Constitution violated all of the following federal Laws of  Section 1983 of U.S.C.S. contemplates the depravation of Civil Rights through the Unconstitutional Application of a Law by conspiracy or otherwise. Mansell v. Saunders (CA 5 F 1A) 372 F 573, especially if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect, where an action is for a conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1985 (3), or for the depravation of such rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, if the conspiracy was actually carried into effect and plaintiff was thereby deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and Laws, the gist of the action may be treated as one for the depravation of rights under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983, Lewis v. Brautigam (CA 5 F 1a) 227 F 2d 124, 55 Alr 2d 505, John W. Strong, 185, 777-78 (4 the ed. 1992).
A.)   Jennings v. Patterson, 488 F. 2d 442, equal access to public facilities. The court found that the plaintiffs had been “denied the right to hold and enjoy their property on the same basis as white citizens.” Jennings suggests the potential usefulness of the equal benefit clause in guaranteeing full and equal enjoyment of public property and public services.” Developments in the Law section 1981, 15 Harv. Civ. Rts. —- Civ. Lib. L. Rev 29, 133 (1980).
B.)   Scott, 377 Mass. 364, 386 N.E. 2d 218, 220 (1979) See Lopez-Alexander, Unreported Order No. 85-279 (Colo. May 3, 1985) (Judge removed for, inter alia, a persistent pattern of abuse of the contempt power. The Mayor of Denver accepted the findings of the Denver County Court Judicial Qualification Commission that the judge’s conduct could not be characterized as mere mistakes or errors of law and that the conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute). Canon Ethics where there is a pattern of disregard or indifference, which warrant discipline.
C.)  That all Judges complicit with Alderman Ed Burke has further violated other legal Constitutional citations of the laws, The Supreme Court of Georgia removed a judge from office for disregarding defendant’s Constitutional rights, including refusing to set appeal bonds for two defendant’s in timely fashion, issuing bench warrants without probable cause, and forcing a defendant to enter a guilty plea in the absence of Counsel. The Court stated, that the judge’s “cavalier disregard of these defendants’ basic and fundamental constitutional rights exhibits an intolerable degree of judicial incompetence, and a failure to comprehend and safeguard the very basis of our constitutional structure Id at 735 See also In re Hammel, 668 N.E. 2d 390 (N.Y. 1996). (Judge removed for improperly jailing defendants for their alleged failure to pay fines and make restitution which the judge had imposed, disregarding the defendant’s basic constitutional rights).
D.)  That because every Judge who has signed orders against Appellant denying him relief falls outside their judicial authority and because they have committed “FRAUD” the following law is applicable here Adoption of E.L.. “A VOID JUDGEMENT OR ORDER” is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order of judgment or where the ORDER was procured by “FRAUD”.
 .  A judge’s disrespect for the rules of court demonstrates disrespect for the law. Judges are disciplined under Canon 2A for violating court rules and procedures. Judged ignored mandated witness order in attempt to accommodate witnesses’ schedules; Citing Canon 2A the court noted, “[a] court’s indifference to clearly stated rules breeds disrespect for and discontent with our justice system. Government cannot demand respect of the laws by its citizens when its tribunals ignore those very same laws”)
As a non – white man this is how members of the Democratic Political Machine have infiltrated the Democratic Party waging war and committing genocide on innocent Free Born & raised United States Citizens in the aforementioned.
                                       FURTHER AFFIANTH SAYETH NAUGHT
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 1265 5/1 -109, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believe the same to be true.
                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,
                                                                                                   Joe Louis Lawrence
                                                                                                     Counsel Pro Se
                         APPEAL TO THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT
                                                   FIRST DISTRICT
                         FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
                                             CHANCERY DIVISION
________________________________________________________________________
                                                                     )
Joe Louis Lawrence                                      )
                                                                     )                     Trial Court No. 12 M 718911
                 Plaintiff-Appellant                         )                     General No.
                                                                     )                     Division No. 1
                                           V.                      )
 Craig Fulton                                                 )                      Hon. Leonard Murray
                                                                     )
                                                                     )
                Defendant- Appellee                     )
                                                                     )
                                                      DRAFT ORDER
    This matter having come on to be heard on Motion to Supplement Record/Remand et al.,  due notice having been given, the court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and being fully advised in the premises;
   It is HEREBY ORDERED that Motion is GRANTED INSTANTER case is reassigned to another division via computer generation.
                                                                              ENTERED:
                                                                              _________________________________
                                                                              Justice Joy V. Cunningham
                                                                              _________________________________
                                                                              Justice Mathias W. Delort
                                                                              _________________________________
                                                                              Justice Thomas E. Hoffman
Joe Louis Lawrence
Counsel Pro Se                                                      ________________________________
P.O. Box 490075                                                   Justice Mary K. Rochford
Chicago, Illinois 60649-0075
(312) 927-4210

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with bad judges at Will County Pro-se.