When Judges Behave Badly

THE ENTIRE VERMONT FAMILY COURTS ARE CORRUPT AND WITHOUT SOMEONE INTERVENING PARENTS ARE LOSING THE MOST PRECIOUS THINGS IN THE WORLD TO THEM WITH OUT ANY LEGAL RECOURSE.. THE VERMONT FAMILY COURTS ARE SO CORRUPT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO INFORM PRO SE PARENTS FIGHTING FOR THIER CHILDREN OF THEIR RIGHTS TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AND IF YOU CANT AFFORD ANY LEGAL ASSISTANCE THEN YOU HAVE LOST EVERYTHING. THE JUDGES IN VERMONT FAMILY COURT ONLY LISTEN TO REPRESENTED PARENTS AND WITHOUT KNOWING YOUR RIGHTS OR LAWS THEY SMILE TO YOUR FACE AS YOU WALK INTO THEIR TWISTED CORRUPT LIES WHILE THEY NOT ONLY TAKE YOUR CHILD AND GIVE THEM TO SICK PEOPLE BUT TAKE ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS TOO. VISIITS WITH YOUR CHILD ARE SO LIMITED , THEY ARE ONLY ENOUGH SO THE PARENT WITH MONEY CAN GET CHILD SUPPORT AND THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL GIVE UP ALL LEGAL RIGHTS! THESE COURTS HAVE NO BUSINESS TEARING BABIES AWAY FROM THE PARENT WHO HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SOLE PROVIDER BUT THEY DO! VERMONT FAMILY COURTS AND JUDGES NEED TO BE EXPOSED FOR THE UNJUST REATMENT OF PRO SE PARENTS AND WORST YET NOT EVEN HAVE TO TELL THE PARENTS WHAT S GOING ON!!! THE VERMONT LAWS ARE SO BADLY WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE COURTS AND THE CORRUPT JUDGES AND NOT THE PARENTS OR CHILDREN! WHEN YOU ARE PRO SE THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO INFORM YOU OF THE 30 DAYS YOU HAVE TO APPEAL YOUR CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT AND AFTER THAT DATE YOU LOSE ANY RECOURSE TO THE ABUSE AND UNJUST TREATMENT YOU SUFFERED AT THE FAMILY COURTS HANDS. MEAN WHILE YOU DONT HAVE YOUR CHILD AND THERE IS NOT A THING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT IT AFTER THAT 30 DAYS! VERMONT FAMILY COURTS, JUDGES, AND ATTORNEY'S ARE ABOUT AS CORRUPT AS YOU CAN GET! IF YOU HAVE MONEY OR BECAUSE MOST ARE SMALL TOWNS YOU KNOW SOMEONE YOU WILL HAVE EVERYTHING YOU EVER ASKED FOR AND EVERY MOTION SUBMITTED GRANTED! IF A PRO SE PARENT SUBMITS A MOTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN THEY ARE DENIED! EQUAL? I DON'T THINK SO...WHO IS WATCHING OVER THESE EVIL COURTS AND THEIR JUDGES ARE NOT GODS, THEY ARE THE DEVIL THEMSELVES. I WANT TO EXPOSE MY CASE TO EVERYONE SO SOMEONE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE VERMONT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM.

a relative of mine was just sentenced to life without parole based on the testimony of two jailhouse informants
who received "consideration" on their sentencing...one of the informants stole paperwork from the relative...
he had kept the papers in his cell so that he and his counsel could go over what was written...the other witrness
clearly did not have any facts, and was merely there to bolster a very weak case by the prosecution...in the case
of these two, the judge would not allow a tape to be admitted of when one of these witnesses was asked by
someone why he (the witness) was lying...in this case the DA told the callee that if he testified, that he would
be in violation of probation and he would be going back to jail...in the other case the judge would not let the
defense attorney ask questions of a defense witness that would have shown that one of the witnesses had
stolen paperwork...the third one to testify that the murder was admitted to by the relative waited four or five
months and after his arrest for drugs to accuse the defendant...he is a quasi relative of someone on the local
police force who also received "consideration" for his testimony,ie no charges for distribution of cocaine, a
a sentence I saw the same judge give a two year prison sentence to someone two weeks later...

admitting the tape would have shown that the DA was willing and in fact did allow someone that they knew, or should
have known, was lying to testify so that the courts could get a conviction, not achieve justice...

in defense of the DA, they did have a DNA sample that was found at the crime scene that had HANDLER DNA that no
one could explain...there was however NO other physical evidence that the relative was even inside the dwelling...
actually all other evidence excluded the relative...

this judge most definetly had a huge impact by his actions on the outcome of this trial...

an interesting article short on erudition and long on the type hypocrisy that has become the hallmark for our culture. in other words, we punish those we don't like or who lack sufficient top cover and punish the rest. it is so today. not unlike the prison-industrial complex, funding and administration for public schools and of course, wall street. guess the joke's on us.

Judges are indeed not perfect trying to perform their job to the best of their ability and for this reason oversight of the judiciary is mandatory. The United States regulates food, drugs, security, financial issues etc in an effort to protect the people. Often such oversight is lacking in the judiciary especially in states like Virginia where there is not involvement of the citizens to review/nominate judges. Criminal and civil cases decide the outcome of people's lives, which are much shorter than the duration of any set laws. The impact made by judicial decisions on peoples lives requires oversight because the role of being a judge is nothing more than a job. An important job it indeed is but a job nonetheless. Special privilege is NOT awarded to even the President of the United States and should NEVER be awarded to any other government position so our children and citizens are protected.

It is easy for a judge to be fair when they do not have a financial stake in the outcome of a hearing. I have seen estimates that 50% of the state judges in the Circuit and lower courts are corrupted at least once during their stay on the bench. When their personal assets or that of frieds, family, neighbors and ex law partners comes into play, the story is different.

Here in Virginia, divorce and custody are the big money makers. Assets from marriage must be disposed of, and they decide who does the disposing. All to often, it is bought for pennies on the dollar by trusts. Who are those trust holders? They are allowed here to dissolve a marriage without asset distribution, and it is the woman, the mother, who gets the short end. And don't even think of charging abuse, abuse never happens in VA. The judges seal the records of it, so it never happened.

Judges are not immune, There is something that can be used. It's called RICO.

I have seen estimates that 50% of the lowest court judges are corrupted. A judge can be fair in a case where there is no interest for him, but when he holds an interest in that case, there is bias. That is human nature. In many of the courts that decide custody and divorce cases, the judges have a monetary interest for themselves and/or their friends, associates and ex law partners: the disposal of the marital property. To often, the hollowed benches are stuffed with money. Look at the two judges in PA that owned an interest in a jail and found that they could keep it at maximum capacity with kids. Here in Virginia, it is the sale of the family home that appears to wash through trusts. Judges do not have immunity as many people think they have. It's called RICO.

If there are those that believe judges shouldn't be judged because they make unpopular decisions, then let's eliminate their immunity once and for all. This way we can determine which decisions are unpopular and which decisions violate fundamental rights. Judicial independence is repugnant to the Constitution which requires accountability by government officials.

"It is better to invade the judicial power of a
State than to permit it to invade, strike down
and destroy the civil rights of citizens. A
judicial power perverted to such uses should
be speedily invaded. The grievance would be
insignificant." Congressional Globe, 39th
Congress, 1st Sess., p. 1837. April 7, 1866.

"Independence can be trusted nowhere but the people in

mass". Thomas Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XV, pp.213-214, to Judge
Spencer Roane on September 6, 1819. The Founders never intended
that the judiciary would become unaccountable to the people. Thomas Jefferson warned that an unaccountable judiciary would transform our form of government into an "oligarchy". Writings, Vol. XV, p.277.

I disagree with Lithwick's opinion that the majority of complaints against judges are from "sore losers". We have a rash of judges in Northern Virginia who are all too eager to seperate young children for loving and competent parents based on the most unfounded charges of abuse or neglect. Their philosophy seems to be if you are not a 100% perfect parent, then you don't deserve to keep your kids. These decisions are far from "harmless" errors, as shown by the cases ofMr. Young and myself. , as they will have long-term consequences for us and our children.

A judge should never be intimidated or punished for making an unpopular decision. A jusge should never be tolerated who makes a decision contrary to the statutory law, appellate precedents, and governing law. No judge should be tolerated who decides the rights of American citizens based upon the judge's personal views or personal opinions. A judge who applies the law should be immune from consequences. A judge who does not apply the law should be immediately fired, just as you would be in your own job.

We hear concerns that a judge may face penalty for making decisions that the public doesn't like. But we don't hire judges to make decisions from their personal opinons. Judges are to apply the law, not make it up as they go along (except in the rare case of a matter of first impression). The question of whether the public likes a judge's decision should never come up, because no judge should ever make his own decision, but only apply the law as it is written by the legislature and appellate courts. Can you imagine a police officer allowed to arrest people based upon the police officer's own personal ideas of what should be illegal or legal? Such a police officer would be fired immediately. How can it be any different with a judge? If a police officer is accountable to follow the law as written, so that we would make a distinction between a police officer following the law or disobeying it, why not judges? If a police officer arrests a popular movie star, we understand that he is only following the law.

So the bottom line is that judges are to apply the law. And if they don't, they are not earning their salary and are abusing their office. It is not a question of political influence or lack of independence. If any of us do not do our jobs, we lose them. Why should judges be different? The Constitution gives Federal judges office NOT FOR LIFE -- BUT ONLY during "GOOD BEHAVIOR." Disobeying the law is not good behavior.

Lithwick makes a very good, small beginning on an otherwise enormous subject. One would think that the news media, guardians of democracy and watchdogs, would take enormous interest in what is 1/3rd of the government, and an institution filled with drama and supremely interesting issues. Why does the news media so thoroughly ignore the courts?

But Lithwick, influenced by her sources and the false dichotomies of advocates, makes an enormous mistake at the end. We are not forced to choose between accepting bad behavior by judges or doing away with the institution. It is a core belief of our American system that every human institution requires constant supervision and correction. The very idea of checks and balances in our Constitution is founded on the idea that any human institution will go bad if it is left unaccountable and not sujbect to constant correction. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Every aspect of our government was designed on these principles. Why are we looking at the judiciary as somehow unique? We are not by any means forced to choose between copmlete neglect of policing the judiciary on the one hand or politically-driven intervention on the other.

There are no independent branches of the government. That is what checks and balances mean. It is a viiolent and traitorous assault on our Constitution -- indeed a violation of the oath of office -- to promote an independent judiciary. Inter-dependence of the 3 Branches through checks and balances is the fundamental genius and core value of our Constitutional System. To speak of an independent judiciary is to betray our Constitutional republic. The idea that no branch is fully independent of the other is what makes our Constitution work.

But can we distinguish between requiring judges to do their job properly from the passions of mob rule? Well, that again is a core concept of our Constitution. That is the same worry that led to a carefully-crafted system in our Constitution. The Framers were very concerned about getting that balance just right. They wanted a government that answers to the people, but not one in which every whim of the mob controlled the day.

This is no different with the judiciary. Judges most of all should have the education to know that there is nothing new or different about these issues, for they permeate every aspect of our Constitution. There is a difference between requiring judges to actually do their jobs and to follow and obey the law and on the other hand letting public opinion or political pressure influence decisions. It can be done. And it must be done. And it is the same question in every area of government. Judges are not unique.

Lithwick makes a very good, small beginning on an otherwise enormous subject. One would think that the news media, guardians of democracy and watchdogs, would take enormous interest in what is 1/3rd of the government, and an institution filled with drama and supremely interesting issues. Why does the news media so thoroughly ignore the courts?


But Lithwick, influenced by her sources and the false dichotomies of advocates, makes an enormous mistake at the end. We are not forced to choose between accepting bad behavior by judges or doing away with the institution. It is a core belief of our American system that every human institution requires constant supervision and correction. The very idea of checks and balances in our Constitution is founded on the idea that any human institution will go bad if it is left unaccountable and not sujbect to constant correction. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Every aspect of our government was designed on these principles. Why are we looking at the judiciary as somehow unique? We are not by any means forced to choose between copmlete neglect of policing the judiciary on the one hand or politically-driven intervention on the other.

There are no independent branches of the government. That is what checks and balances mean. It is a viiolent and traitorous assault on our Constitution -- indeed a violation of the oath of office -- to promote an independent judiciary. Inter-dependence of the 3 Branches through checks and balances is the fundamental genius and core value of our Constitutional System. To speak of an independent judiciary is to betray our Constitutional republic. The idea that no branch is fully independent of the other is what makes our Constitution work.

When judges are portrayed on television or in movies, they are usually portrayed as fair and competent, and when they're not, it is obvious because we can see it, and our sense of justice is upset. The purpose for the First Amendment and public courtrooms is to expose corrupt public officials and any appearance of possible corruption. Yes OUR judiciary should be held in high esteem, but first we need to be able to watch them.

Due to my naive faith that justice would prevail the first time I went before a family court judge, there is no physical record or transcript of my case before Robert M. Jacobi, the slavemaster / judge imposter who illegally kidnapped my three children in his kangaroo court in January, 1989.

How convenient it is for treasonous judge imposters not to have any record of the proceedings when they engage in human trafficking and violations of their oaths to follow state and federal constitutions and precedents of higher courts.

We pretend to care about children but don't even bother to see how decisions about "the best interest of the child" are made? There's only one possibe explanation: judge imposters want to hide their crimes.

The fact that we don't already require video or at least audio recording of all family court proceedings is blatant evidence of their corruption. When will we demand an end to these dens of darkness and corruption by bringing OUR courtrooms into the light of 21st Century technology. Light is the best disinfectant. The courts and the entire judiciary belong to We, The People, not to judges. They are public servants and it is our duty as Citizens to monitor them. We are currently blocked from seeing when they are behaving badly.

Oh really? Some guy feeling up the subordinates is so much more appalling than closing a court down and killing an inmate? In what society? Maybe we should say the sexual harassment is a fallible human being and the disgrace on the bench is the one that circumvented the legal process. Hmmm...

I don't believe it is only the judges who are out of control. What about the lawyers who charge outrageous fees and never meet with their clients? What about lawyers who take your money and then don't do their job? What about lawyers who quote you a price then refuse to work for you until you pay them more money? The legal field itself is out of control. There is no one who holds these people accountable and no one who is able to stop the thieving tha is going on throughout this entire country. Judges are just the higher level of the legal system. They protect one another and until we hold them accountable for the services they render, they will continue to plaque and pilfer the people who pay their way not by choice but because the judges tell us we have to.

I am divorce father of two beautiful children. My ex-wife has full custody of children. Recently I was thrown in Jail because of back child support owed. I had a verbal agreement with my ex that the house I'm paying the mortgage now would be as a means of child support since she earns nearly $100,000 p/year so money was not an issue. She is a Naval Reserve officer in Knoxville, TN. We went to court on August 2008, and was thrown in Jail, she presented a naval document that had duty instructions and her name was handwritten and not printed, her orders were to Germany where no Naval facility. Didn't have an apartment rented no school registration, and no knowledge of where she was going. The judge and atorney were inside chambers probably discussing the case agaist me. I like to mention that my ex attorney represents a co-worker and her ex makes three times the amount I make and he is not paying a cent on child support and here I'm paying half of every paycheck and fallen behind on other obligations. I imperative to mention that mi ex wife orders suposely a recall to active duty was false statement she had applied for an open billet. She was ordered to serve a minimum of 14 months and the possibilty to extend to 2 years. I was told by my kids that they were coming to visit on April 6, 2009 for spring break, now my lovely kids are telling me that their mom got orders back to USA and are coming to Johnson City, TN for good, I'm very happy god had heard my prayers , but I'm also concern why this prompt return. I forsee more litigation and probably face jail time since this judge is bias.
Thanks Sincerely
Ramiro Rodriguez tnramtx@msn.com

While Lithwick's last two summary sentences are well considered, I feel we can trust the America people's ability to distinguish the bad behavior of judges from "generalized griping" about age and elitism a lot more than we can trust the behavior of presiding judges. Lord Acton's legendary dictum that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is as appropriate for jesters in court as it is for clowns in Congress. We can trust the judges to judge "under the circumstances," and applicable limiting laws should be in force to control the circumstances. Unless, of course, Lithwick's statement that "judges are not gods" is entirely gratuitous.

Often times one needs to be in a situation to know the truth of it. The LA Times and the Seattle Times (Your Court, Their Secrets) have written about the plight of the incapacitated in our courts. What becomes evident is rampant blatant bias, favoritism and corruption. Judges and commissioners relegating those elderly incapacitated with estates to the shadows while they give blanket approval to everything given to the court by the court appointed lawyer/guardian. Dean Libey

When happening in ALL other countries the Americans call this kind of acts CORRUPTION.
In United States of America we call that POLITICS. A most HYPOCRITE way to refuse to FACE the reality that the SYSTEM of this great country of ours the USA is as just undermined by the three main ingredients that foster the fall of a Civilization - or in the case of USA - the American Society:
1- Uncontrolled out of proportion Personal Greed
2- Using political office for Personal Gain on a grand scale
3- The Strong Manipulation of the elected officials by Financial Entities, helped by many of those same officials who look the other way to cover or protect their own *personal* interest.

The ancient Egyptians paid the price???
The ancient Greeks paid the price???
The Romans paid the price???
The ancient Arabs paid the price???
The Europeans Powers paid the price???
And the Americans will be paying the price too, perhaps at a faster pace than the shortest lived powers in history: The Europeans.

All these Powers have ONE thing in common: They all have been subjugated from within by the same embryo that led to their demise: GREED.