“Center for Judicial Accountability” (reStrain) versus “Center for Judicial Excellence” (reTrain) Theories.
NOTE: in this post, I’m going to use [QUOTE:] and [/ENDQUOTE] rather than mess with wordpress’s fickle built-in quote function, which looks like this, and the “WYSIWYG” (what you see is what you get) doesn’t function on the input screen.
BLOCKQUOTE . . . . ASDF;LKJASDF;LKJASDFL;KJADSFL;KJ ETC.
When judges round up citizens without known business before the courts — simply because they are in the courthouse that day — or send them off to jail for SPEAKING at a public hearing! — then it seems there’s a little struggle about who gets to train whom. In an era when the Catholic Church extremists (one who MIGHT become US President, for what that’s worth) are complaining that someone is restraining their right to restrain women (i.e., about contraception) — then it’s clear too many have already been trained, like dogs, to submit to the ridiculous.
Let me talk about how I heard about the Sassower Mother/Daughter combo. . . . and the answer is, probably by coincidence. A friend of mine was looking for an attorney to help her file a federal case — and she’s got a GOOD one — out of state, as the state is obviously a goner when it comes to several civil rights issues. MOST states are goners in the family law arena already, but this had some extra flavors to it.
As things go, the woman is originally from California, home of “Let’s Incarcerate Taxpayer Advocates” and “how DARE you imply that payments by the county to a judge affect the judge’s decisions when ruling on a case involving the County’ Richard Fine. Home of a whole lot of interesting creations, including retroactive immunity for judges, the AFCC (it seems) and the concept of One-Stop-Justice-Shops, which they want to take international, and are:
[QUOTE:]
How to Start a Family Justice Center
Across the country and around the world community leaders, advocates, law- enforcement agencies, service providers, shelters, and concerned community leaders are exploring the possibility of starting a Family Justice Center in their own community. A Family Justice Center is a co-located, multi-disciplinary approach to services for victims of family violence and their children. The goal is simple: To provide one safe place where victims and their children can go to get all their services under one roof.*** The model seeks to wrap victims in support and services and end the frustrating journey for victims of having to go from agency to agency, telling their story over the over again in order to get the help they need.*** . . .
got that? The first step is to patronize our Conference (DVD of the plenary sessions only $99) and BUY! Sponsored by NCADV, who also is real good at selling things. THIS group is all about TRAINING — and that TRAINING is an increasingly self-referential closed set of informations that actual victims of the FAMILY courts cannot get a word in edgewise into the PR material. Especially not with Denise Gamache of BWJP sitting on the board, or Oliver Williams (also fatherhood promoter), etc. (see below):
But, the concept is a ONE-STOP-SHOP . . . . .
**This version is much simpler. THey only have to go ONE place to not get the help/truths that they need.
***Question. Sometimes Police are corrupt. How helpful is it when a teenager who’s been raped by a police officer when she reports? What about when police simply choose not to arrest and D.A.’s choose not to prosecute — which they CERTAINLY have the right not to (not that women seeking protective orders are generally told this, or other relevant information)???
FOR EXAMPLE:
“She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.” This is a 2012 report; a 19-year-old Milwaukee mother of two …”had returned to high school as a mother of two and after graduation she had continued on to the University of Wisconsin, where she was studying criminal justice with the thought of becoming police officer or a lawyer.” She calls 911 when a brick was thrown through the window and was sodomized and raped by the responding officer …
[QUOTE:]”Her revulsion in the aftermath was so visceral that she vomited as she ran outside. The cop’s partner had become concerned when he did not immediately see Cates and called for back-up. Other cops began arriving and saw a woman screaming incoherently about being raped.
Cates {officer} appeared and grabbed her by the waist, spinning her around. Her swinging feet may or may not have struck the partner. She was handcuffed and taken in, told at the stationhouse that she was being charged with assaulting a police officer. She became more coherent but no less outraged and vocal as she continued cry out from a holding cell that she had been raped. She also continued to vomit. The other cops dismissed her as a liar.
After 12 hours, she was interviewed by internal affairs and taken to a hospital, where a rape kit was used to collect evidence. She was then taken to the county jail and held for four days before being released without actually being charged. She took her story to the Milwaukee District Attorney’s office. A prosecutor subsequently wrote, “While I did find the victim’s version of events credible, I did not believe that her testimony would be strong enough to successfully prosecute Officer Cates.”
In other words, Cates was still a cop and she was still an inner-city teenage single mom. She stopped going to school as she fell into a deep depression, making two serious suicide attempts.
“It was killing my soul,” she says. [/ENDQUOTE]
Article by Michael Daley in “The Daily Beast” US News — and it’s ONLY from January 29, 2012…. Though it ended with justice, the criminal justice system lost what would’ve been a good woman — she changed majors ….
Many things in this system are soul-killers . . . . .
[QUOTE:]
National Advisory Board (of the Family Justice Center National Alliance)
   |
 |
 |
 |
| Sarah Buel, J.D. Clinical Professor of Law Director, Diane Halle Center for Family Justice Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University |
Yvonne Carrasco Consultant to Foundations & the Non-Profit Sector |
Sue Else President National Network to End Domestic Violence |
 |
 |
 |
| Denise Gamache Director Battered Women’s Justice Project |
Dean M. Hawley, MD Professor Indiana University School of Medicine Clarian Pathology Laboratory |
Michael Mason Chief Security Officer Verizon Communications |
 |
 |
 |
| Nancy E. O’Malley District Attorney Office of the District Attorney Alameda County * * * |
Kim Wells Executive Director Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence |
Oliver J. Williams, Ph.D., Executive Director Institute on DV in the African American Community Professor, School of Social Work University of Minnesota |
The hiring of Nadia Lockyer seems to violate state law. Under California Government Code Section 87100, an elected official is not allowed to “influence” a decision which will benefit a member of his immediate family financially.
Under the California Constitution, Tom Orloff is subordinate to Bill Lockyer. How can any subordinate not be “influenced” by the fact that one applicant is his boss’ wife?
Also, the Family Justice Center Nadia Lockyer was hired to receives Federal grant money. It appears the rules for spending that money may also have been violated. The applicable rule is one which requires any decision made by a state official which will effect him or his immediate family financially shall be “an arm’s length transaction” where he does not have any direct influence over it.
But again, Bill Lockyer is Tom Orloff’s boss, so how can Tom Orloff be at “arm’s length” from Lockyer?
Anyone wishing to contact me for updates should email boatbrain@aol.com
THAT was all an aside. After some years looking at these groups (and knowing that none have provided any significant help to women challenged AFTER filing for their protection, from losing their children improperly later, anyhow) –it’s a sorry situation.
/ / / / / / / / / /
ANYHOW, in the process of simply networking locally (that’s called paying attention to people that cross my path in the course of daily life, and sometimes hearing their stories….) . . . . . we were looking for a certain attorney who was defending yet ANOTHER individual improperly arrested during an unrelated trial — when the apparent issue was complaining about police brutality, then complaining about the destruction of his complaint about police brutality, and so forth.
That information can be found at “The Badger Flats Gazette“ which appears to be this man’s on-line blogging of police brutality and coverup, starting approximately like this:
I am Gene Forte, publisher of the Badger Flats Gazette, that has been exposing public official corruption in Merced and Monterey County.
Since July 2009, I have provided evidence to the Fresno FBI Office that Merced County law enforcement are covering-up that they falsely arrested and assaulted me at the Los Banos Courthouse and the Merced Courthouse.
They did it to intimidate me. I was not a criminal defendant going to the courthouses for an arraignment, or to start trouble.
I was arrested at the Merced Courthouse when attending a Case Management Conference as the plaintiff in the lawsuit I had against Merced County DA Larry Morse.
When I was arrested at the Los Banos Courthouse, I was about to attend a traffic hearing with my minor son.
During the past two years, I have provided the Fresno FBI with approximately 65 pages of evidence of:
1. Information and audio recordings proving that I was falsely arrested and assaulted by the deputies.
2. Grand Jury Tampering by Merced County Counsel James Fincher of the investigation of my arrest.
3. Proof that the Merced County Sheriff’s Department Citizen Complaint about the false arrest had not been investigated and disappeared.
4. Confirming that the FBI Was Ordered Not to Investigate Color of Law Abuses by Merced County
Fresno FBI Agent Robinson, referred to the above as a ” stack of information.”
There is no voluminous stack as you can see from the fax cover indicating the number of pages.
Agent Robinson was saying that just to be insulting and demeaning.
I am currently scheduled to go to trial in March to defend against the charges of my arrest.
Merced County DA Morse told me that no charges would be filed against me provided I didn’t file litigation against them for police brutality.
I told him in polite terms to go to hell.
[/ENDQUOTE]
Mr. Chairman, there’s Citizen’s Opposition to confirmation of Judge Wesley based on his documented corruption as a New York State of Appeals Judge. May I testify?
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
First Amendment, U.S. Constitution
|
Having failed to elicit any response from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee with whom she corresponded concerning her opposition to the confirmation of Judge Richard Wesley to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Elena Ruth Sassower journeyed to Washington to attend the Committee’s hearings on May 22, 2003. The Committee was ready for her. Denied the opportunity to participate in the “public hearing,” Sassower rose from her seat upon adjournment and requested permission to make a statement, whereupon she was handcuffed, jailed, and eventually put on trial for “Disruption of Congress.” Her trial commenced on April 14, 2004 in D.C. Superior Court in front of a jury, Judge Brian F. Holeman presiding. Sassower’s prepared opening statement to the jury is reprinted below. |
Apart from everything else, the evidence will show that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s public hearing to confirm New York Court of Appeals Judge Richard Wesley to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was already over when, as coordinator and co-founder of the Center for Judicial Accountability, I rose on behalf of the citizens of New York State and the Second Circuit to respectfully request to testify with “citizen opposition” to Judge Wesley’s confirmation to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. This, based on his documented corruption as a judge on New York’s highest state court — our New York Court of Appeals.
The evidence will also show that at the Senate Judiciary Committee — if not at every other committee of the Senate and House — it is unprecedented to arrest a citizen for respectfully requesting to testify at a public committee hearing, even when it is not over.
What began as a local effort by a group of citizens to fight political manipulation and dishonesty in local judicial elections has become the impetus for a national organization.
In 1989, the Ninth Judicial Committee, a grass-roots group in the Ninth Judicial District of New York State, just north of New York City, was formed to do something about a written Deal between the Democratic and Republican parties trading seven judgeships over a three-year period. By the Deal, the parties agreed to “cross-endorse” the same judicial candidates, effectively disenfranchising voters of their constitutional right of election — the major party slates being identical.
The Deal, which also provided for contracted-for resignations to create new judicial vacancies and a split of patronage, was thereafter implemented at judicial nominating conventions that violated the most basic Election Law safeguards. The Governor, the State Board of Elections, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, and bar associations refused to investigate.
Consequently, in 1990, the Ninth Judicial Committee spearheaded litigation to challenge the Deal and the judicial nominating conventions. The litigation was dumped by the courts in decisions which violated fundamental legal standards and falsified the factual record.
In the ensuing years, the Ninth Judicial Committee worked tirelessly to expose the political corruption of judicial elections in New York, as well as of the so-called “merit selection” of judges to New York’s highest court. In that connection, in 1993, we twice testified before the State Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Ninth Judicial Committee also undertook a ground-breaking six-month investigation of the federal judicial nominations process. Our fully-documented study, submitted to the U.S. Senate in 1992, established the deficiencies of the screening process upon which the President makes his nominations of our lifetime federal judges. In 1993, we presented that study and other documentary evidence to the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal to refute its methodologically-flawed report as to the adequacy of existing mechanisms for disciplining federal judges.
By 1993, the Ninth Judicial Committee, having far transcended its local origins, inspired the formation of the Center for Judicial Accountability (CJA), which became formally incorporated in 1994.
[/ENDQUOTE]
This shows how her law license was suspended:
immediately,
indefinitely, and
unconditionally
. . .with no notice of charges,
no hearing,
no findings of professional conduct,
and no reasons.
no hearing on the basis of suspension, and
no appellate review.
WPCNR LEGACIES OF WHITE PLAINS. From Center for Judicial Accountability. December 7, 2006: Doris L. Sassower, of White Plains, NY, a leading feminist lawyer who, at 35, was the youngest President of the New York Women’s Bar Association, is profiled in the just- published book, Feminists Who Changed America, 1963-1975. “The women’s movement was, apart from the civil rights upheaval, the major social revolution of the 20th century,” says Sassower.
White Plains’ Doris Sassower, right, with the feminist icon, Gloria Steinem at a reception at Columbia University, celebrating the publication of Feminists Who Changed America. Photo, Courtesy Center for Judicial Accountability.
The book, edited by Barbara J. Love, was released on November 13. Publication was celebrated with an all-day gala event at Columbia University and Barnard College in NYC, sponsored by the Veteran Feminists of America. The program included a symposium on the women’s movement at Columbia Faculty House, followed by a reception hosted by Barnard President, Dr. Judith Shapiro, and dinner honoring Sassower and feminists such as Gloria Steinem.
Sassower battled her own profession for years, and galvanized bar leaders into action that won greater equality between the sexes in and outside the legal profession. In 1993, {{actually, 1994}} she co-founded the Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc., a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, based in White Plains, NY, which she describes as “documenting the corruption of our federal, state, and local judicial nominating processes for appointment, as well as for election, and of all remedies for redress of judicial abuse and other misconduct.” Find out more at http://www.judgewatch.org
Her articles, speeches, and legal cases challenging sexism, as well as other papers, are archived at the Schlesinger Library of Harvard University.
[/ENDQUOTE]
Sassower, Doris L. (1932 – ) It was her “second-class citi- zen” experience at NYU Law School as one of six women in the 1955 class that turned Sassower into a future leader of the women’s movement. By 1968, at age 35, Sassower was elected president of the New York Women’s Bar Association. Her 1968 Trial Magazine article, “What’s Wrong with Women Lawyers?” concluded that nothing whatever was wrong with women lawyers but the discrimination against them in the legal profession, reflecting the societal sexism of the time.
In February 1969, Sassower presented these “radical” views to the National Conference of Bar Presidents, the first woman ever invited to do so.
In that same year, four years prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, Sassower led the New York Women’s Bar Association to become the first bar association to endorse repeal of New York’s abortion law. In April 1970, Sassower co-convened a national conference on Breaking Down the Barriers in the Professions. More than 500 professional and academic women from across the country and abroad listened to documented reports on the unequal status of women in America. This, she says, led to the formation of the Professional W omen’s Caucus, the first respected professional support for what became known as the women’s movement. In 1971, as head of PWC’s legal arm, Sassower filed a class action complaint against every American law school receiving federal funds, based on their identified discrimination against women.
Sassower brought a test case under NYC’s human rights law and made new law for women by expanding city and state jurisdiction to include financial institutions and credit houses under the rubric “public accommodations.” In 1972, she became the first woman practitioner nominated at a judicial convention for the New York Court of Appeals. She also became the first woman named to the New York State Bar Association’s judiciary committee, serving for eight years. Sassower’s advocacy skills transformed the world for women and men, particularly in family law.
By the early 1970s, she had become known as “the mother of joint custody,” also arguing-well before the U.S. Supreme Court so ruled that statutory denial of alimony to men was unconstitutional sex- stereotyping. In 1977, Harvard Law School hung her portrait as part of its 25th anniversary celebration of its admission of women. Her pioneering efforts have been recognized nationally. In 1981, NY State NOW honored her with a Special Award for “outstanding achievements on behalf of women and children in the area of family law.” Since her retirement from law practice, Sassower has worked, pro bono, as co-founder and director of the Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. In 1997, she won a national Giraffe Award, given to those who “stick their necks out for the Common Good.” In addition to her J.D. from NYU Law School (1955), Sassower holds a BA from Brooklyn College (1954). She has three children. Archives: Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Cambridge, MA. (ABS)
Love, Barbara, ed. Feminists Who Changed America 1963-1975. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006
“By and large [the women’s movement]
has hurt women in divorce court more than it has helped them.”
Why? Because there is still an ingrained male chauvinism in our court system resulting from judges who punish women for not conforming to their own standards of behavior—wives who have asserted themselves in order to have careers or more than one role. Women on the bench are often of the same generation and no different. Aren’t things better for women in states with no-fault divorce laws?One must differentiate between no-fault divorce, where fault is not a factor in a separation, and fault as a factor in the award of alimony. No-fault divorce, of which I am in favor, is a humane approach, but in some states it has been adopted without sufficient thought. The new laws simply permit husbands and wives to terminate a marriage unilaterally without providing for financial security or property rights for the wife.What about the stereotype of the divorced man who complains about being “taken to the cleaners”?That is a popular idea, but it’s a myth…
“Who Should Pay Alimony? Divorce Lawyer Doris Sassower Offers a Surprising Answer“
-
March 28, 1977 Vol. 7 No. 12 of PEOPLE
By Sally Moore, Dick Friedman
More and more men are assuming the child-rearing roles and asking for exclusive or joint custody of children. In such cases, it is justifiable for a man to ask for alimony and child support.
Are women taking a greater initiative in seeking divorce?
Yes. An increasing number of women want a divorce, particularly in marriages of long standing, and their husbands not only don’t want divorce but fight desperately to prevent it. I have handled any number of cases where the men will not let go to the point where women are so wretched they are willing to forget what the law entitles them to.
Why are men resisting divorce?
It’s a blow to their male egos. It isn’t possible for them to think their wives no longer want to live with them. They rationalize by saying they can’t afford two households. That’s a valid argument, but often not the true issue.
Why have these changes been so long in coming?
Because there is a legal tradition of divorce being a battleground. For example, in New York State, until 1966 adultery was the only grounds for divorce. **This set up the ugliest situations, all unnecessary because inevitably there were other reasons to dissolve the marriage.
Quite simply, in many states the laws are an obscenity. In some states, there are no provisions for an equitable division of marital assets. They are distributed basically in accordance with whoever owns the title to the property—usually the husband. In New York still, if a husband can prove his wife guilty of one act of misconduct—regardless of his actions or what provoked her—she loses all chances of alimony. And if the case has to be litigated, a woman often can’t find a lawyer to represent her. She has no money, and all the marital assets are in the husband’s name. I have seen millionaires’ wives in that situation.
Don’t husbands have to pay their wives’ attorneys’ fees?
Counsel fees are awarded at the discretion of the court. That usually takes months, and often the amount is so small it deters a worthwhile attorney.
Has the women’s movement helped?
By and large, it has hurt women in the divorce court more than it has helped them.
A national, nonpartisan,
nonprofit citizens’ organization
documenting how judges break the law
and get away with it.
Our Mission . . .
To improve the quality of our judiciary by removing political considerations from the judicial selection process and by ensuring that the process of disciplining and removing judges is effective and meaningful.
What We Do . . .
-
Educate the public about the paramount importance of the judiciary and its role in protecting our constitutional form of government.
-
Document the nature and extent of judicial incompetence, abuse, and dishonesty and the failure of judicial conduct commissions and screening panels to protect the public.
-
Network judicial activists and legal reform groups around the country to promote citizen involvement, concerted action, and protection for judicial “whistleblowers”.
J.A.I.L. recognizes this can be achieved only through making the Judicial Branch of government answerable and accountable to an entity other than itself. At this time it isn’t, resulting in the judiciary’s arbitrary abuse of the doctrine of judicial immunity, leaving the People without recourse when their inherent rights are violated by judges.
Lives and finances are being ruined, properties are being lost, innocent people are going to jail, and families are being torn apart and destroyed.
Attorney Richard Fine was in for jail for fifteen months beginning March 4, 2009 because of his discovery of illegal payoffs by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors to Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges as annual salary bonuses. These payoffs began in the late 1980’s. Because of Richard Fine a hurried attempt to make these payments retroactively legal was made with the passage of California Senate BillSBx2-11.
[/ENDQUOTE]
Here he is, apparently, being led off:
Please Sign Petition – Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición – Liberar a Richard Fine
Richard Fine – 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken “not permitted” payments (called by media “bribes”). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed “retroactive immunities” (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.
Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine –
SPEAKING OF UPCOMING PRESIDENT’S DAY — a NJ MOTHER, desperately trying to get a restraining order because boyfriend had threatened to kill her if she terminated the relationship, choking her, was told no cops available, it was a holiday — “take it to family court.”
NOTE: The Domestic Violence and for the most part, the Professionalized “protective parent” industry treated Mr. Fine’s case like dirt — basically ignoring it. While people all over the country, men and women, are going to jail over child support, or reporting abuse — certain entities ,year after year, picked certain poster child (or adults, as the case may be) they wanted everyone to free, including “FREE ELSA NEWMAN.” I find this odd…. What about the person who caught California withholding millions of collected child support distributions from needy families? Doesn’t he merit a little protest?
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”
~Thomas Jefferson, “The Declaration of Independence.”
Cops’ Day Off May Have Been a Fatal MistakeBy CHERYL ARMSTRONG
|
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/10/43776.htm
Venetta Benjamin claims that her relationship with Shamsiddin Abdur-Raheem became physically and verbally abusive about one month after she learned she was pregnant.
“Despite entreaties by Venetta for protection for herself and Zara, EOPD personnel attending the front desk turned her away,” the complaint states. “They claimed due to the President’s Day holiday they could not help her and directed Venetta to report to the Superior Court of New Jersey Family Division-Essex County on February 16, 2010, to seek a DV-TRO.”
East Orange personnel “failed to contact the on-duty judge assigned to handle application for DV-TROs,” Benjamin claims.
But when Venetta went to the courthouse the next day, leaving her mother to look after Zara, Abdur-Raheem “forcefully kidnapped Zara,” according to the complaint.
“While on the Garden State Parkway, Shamsiddin stopped his car on the Driscoll Bridge and tossed Zara off the bridge into the frigid water of the Raritan River below which resulted in Zara’s death,” the complaint states.
BANANA REPUBLIC: (WIKIPEDIA)
A banana republic is a politically unstable country that depends heavily on exports of a limited resource (e.g. fruits or minerals), typically having a heavily impoverished lower class ruled by a much smaller wealthy elite. In political science it is more precisely defined as being dependent upon limited primary productions, and being ruled by a plutocracy that exploits the country by means of a politico-economic oligarchy.[1]
The term banana republic originally denoted the fictional “Republic of Anchuria”, a “servile dictatorship” that abetted (or supported for kickbacks) the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation.[1] In U.S. politics, the term banana republic was a political descriptor first used by the American writer O. Henry in Cabbages and Kings (1904), a book of thematically related short stories derived from his 1896–97 residence in Honduras, where he was hiding from U.S. law for bank embezzlement.[2] It is generally considered pejorative.
In practice, a banana republic is a country operated as a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by the collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility. Such an imbalanced economy reduces the national currency to devalued paper-money, hence, the country is ineligible for international development credit and remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country.Kleptocracy, government by thieves, features influential government employees exploiting their posts for personal gain (embezzlement, fraud, bribery, etc.), with the resultant deficit repaid by the native working people who “earn money”, rather than “make money”. Because of foreign (corporate) manipulation, the government is unaccountable to its nation, the country’s private sector–public sector corruption operates the banana republic, thus, the national legislature usually are for sale, and function mostly as ceremonial government.[3]
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Leave a Reply