This 59 year old judge is going to get  THREE out of the TWENTY possible years he could’ve gotten, in a plea bargain part of which included simply admitting that he was guilty.

If one is going to get caught, apparently, it’s good to know how to minimize damages.  

This just in from The Wall Street Journal (and many other sites!)

Disgraced Judge Gets Nearly Three Years in Prison

(May 11, 2009, AP)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124207284541407891.html

}}The kind headline doesn’t mention FOR WHAT?  Sex crimes, and obstruction of justice.}}

 Associated Press

HOUSTON — A disgraced federal judge was sentenced Monday to nearly three years in prison for lying about groping two female employees, who described in court the nightmarish working conditions that made them hide from the man one called an intimidating “drunken giant.” 

U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent also was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $6,550 in restitution to the secretary and case manager whose complaints resulted in the first sex-abuse case against a sitting federal judge.

. . The women he abused told visiting senior Judge Roger Vinson that they came to work scared he might find them — even neglecting to answer courthouse phones — and that he put them through repeated and humiliating sexual abuse at the federal courthouse in Galveston, where Mr. Kent was the lone jurist…..

Ms. McBroom, 50, said her complaint about Mr. Kent, which initiated the case, had been “incredibly stressful,” led to the breakup of her marriage, the loss of her home, forced her to give up what she considered her dream job and put her entire life under a public and legal microscope.

“One would think I was the criminal,” she said. Mr. Kent stared at the carpeted floor for much of the women’s statements.

The judge’s secretary, Donna Wilkerson, told of seven years of abuse by Mr. Kent, whom she said tried to molest her on her fifth day on the job.

(Your parenting plan for today — read the article).

Same case, diff’t source:

Disgraced Judge Sentenced to 3 Years

Isn’t that funny, how “sex sells” but when it comes to a judge who had a problem with this,and lying about it when court, then pleading it out when sentenced, none of the above makes the headlines?  

Is it possible that he was entirely right in believing that he wouldn’t get caught or that, if he did, the punishment wouldn’t be full-force?
I’m so glad our system is in the hands of judges that know how to “work the system,” themselves.   Perhaps his knowledge that he wouldn’t probably pay full price, if caught (and that women’s jobs were at risk, and public humiliation of reporting) might have contributed to this climate of abuse?

By Michael Graczyk | The Associated Press
HOUSTON — A disgraced federal judge was sentenced Monday to nearly three years in prison for lying to investigators about whether he sexually abused his secretary. Your wrongful conduct is a huge black X … a stain on the judicial system itself, a matter of concern in the federal courts,” U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said as he imposed the sentence. Vinson is a visiting senior judge called in from Pensacola, Fla.

Interesting, that the Judge’s “Bark” was considerably larger than the “Bite…”

Kent pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in February as jury selection for his trial was about to begin. He had been charged with obstruction and five sex-crime counts alleging that he groped his secretary and his former case manager.

Conviction on the most serious of those charges could have sent him to prison for life.”

What to do with a groping, lying, bullying (alcoholic) and unrepentant judge — obviously set an example, and slap him on the wrist, and with a minor (relative to salary) fine.  ((“Huge black Stain” results in minor fees and 3 years out of possible life in prison, or 20?”))

Entering a courthouse shouldn’t become a crapshoot for either litigants — OR employees, for sure.

LET”S COMPARE WITH A WOMAN IN THE UK, WHO TEXTED HER SON, IN UTTER DEFIANCE OF A STANDING ORDER NOT TO:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6256499.ec

Mum jailed for telling son she loves him

A woman has been denied access to her children for three years, accused of trying to turn them against their father

May 10, 2009 (“Mothers’ Day” at least in the US):

Daniel Foggo

. . .

Her failing, in the eyes of the courts, was to have turned the boys against their father.

The remarkable case is likely to prompt fresh calls for more open scrutiny of the family courts system. Although recent reforms allow limited reporting of some hearings, most remain secret.

((NOTE:  This article is not exactly bias-free, but exemplifies what is happening in family law.  Very strict towards mothers who, having been caught in the social service system, or the court’s radar, for violating even minor aspects of a court order. ))

((Note:  Blog author, me, has found, to date, not one single aspect of our current court order enforceable, not even physical custody, let alone visitation, or for that matter, child support.  This is not exactly a healthy situation for anyone, but such it is,  for crossing a cultural paradigm…))

The wife completed a parenting course, but it was felt that she was still allowing the children to “run riot” when she saw them, treating them in an “infantile” way and “encouraging them to make complaints against their father”.

The wife said: “When I held my three-year-old son on my hip and hugged him they said I was treating him in an infantile way. I couldn’t win.”

Matters came to a head in August 2006 when a family court judge ruled that her contact with the children should be stopped, even though it was conceded that all of them had a “constant wish” to see her.

The wife said: “They said I was not strict enough, but I was seeing them for an hour a week, and telling them off for minor things was not the foremost thing on my mind.

“When they said things about their father I was alarmed and wanted them investigated, but when I realised how the social workers were viewing things, I tried to restrain them from talking that way.”

A report from a psychiatrist brought in by social services said: “[The mother’s] willingness to listen and agree with the children’s complaints . . . has undermined any attempts made to provide better management of the children.

“Consideration should be given to terminating [the contact], unless [the mother] has completed in a satisfactory way a suitable parenting course and has accepted responsibility for the confusion caused the children by her permissive approach and other actions.”

This case has many “red flags” for some of us who know them, and have experienced the mother-blaming as opposed to father-examining also.  (The article assumes the court’s view as factual).

Resulting, perhaps in another comment, also from UK:

http://www.thelawyer.com 

Family Court transparency:

has New Labour reneged on its promise?

13 April 2009 | By Katy Dowell 

In December last year Lord Chancellor Jack Straw QC declared that 

the Government would propose to change the law to allow access to 

the Family Court so that justice could be seen to be done. 

According to a statement made by Straw at the time: “It’s vital 

these courts command the confidence of the public if the 

public is to accept the court’s decisions.” 

Before the end of the month Straw will see his vision realised. While the 

move is designed to restore the public’s faith in family law, legal opinion 

is divided over whether the Government’s aims will have the intended 

effect or if, in fact, they will serve to erode privacy further. 

BLOG UPDATE FROM Let’sGetHonest

Here’s my note to the teacher on why I haven’t been posting recently:

• The dog ate my laptop.
• My sister stole my homework.
• My grandmother had a sudden emergency (again, like the last time I told you she had an emergency).  

ACTUALLY, this is why:

• I was in shock over some recent articles detailing (the week before Mother’s Day weekend) Obama was putting his full weight behind solving some apparent “fatherhood woes.” MY brain was trying to reconcile this with what I know about how many (millions of dollars) have been thrown already to extinguish the burning bush of single motherhood, which still persists, and apparently succeeds in raising competent individuals.  THis is putting the “fatherhood” myth in it’s proper perspective.  Something had to be done — FAST.  (NOTE:  This may sound cryptic, but I will try to get the article in question — plus commentary — up properly).
• I myself was on shock or was it depression, at yet another weekend when I was unable (being a mother) to make even phone contact with my daughters, when an existing court order clearly stipulates they are to be up here on Mother’s Day, adn with their father on Father’s Day. 
• I am having some technical difficulties (resulting in a “lack of faith” in the widget section of wordpress).
• There is also this pesky issue of financial survival, which troubles many who have entered the doors of family law system, yet remain unable to extract themselves intact — or at all.  Just think of a bear trap.  It doesn’t have your leg, it has your kids, your heart (which is often in one’s mouth) and while in this situation, it is challenging to creatively restore income lost year after year.
• Also realizing that the major focus here, perhaps needs to be a separate blog, as tempting as it is to comment on the news regularly.

Therefore, apologies for the under-cooked nature of this post.  Then again, RAW FOOD DIET can be a good one.