Justice reform in Maryland was formally launched in January of 1998 when the judges of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, headed by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell, signed Rule 16-204.  Babb, Barbara A., Maryland’s Family Divisions: Sensible Justice for Families and Children, 72 Md. L. Rev. 1124 (2013).  <=<=BOOKMARK, READ

We are so financially entangled in the federal government and large corporations and banks that we cannot see our complicity in everything we say we abhor. Our social networks are so interwoven with the institutional leadership — government officials, bankers, lawyers, professors, foundation heads, corporate executives, investors, fellow alumni — that we dare not hold our own families, friends, colleagues and neighbors accountable for our very real financial and operational complicity. While we hate “the system,” we keep honoring and supporting the people and institutions that are implementing the system when we interact and transact with them in our day-to-day lives. Enjoying the financial benefits and other perks that come from that intimate support ensures our continued complicity and contribution to fueling that which we say we hate.

Standing among the beautiful vegetables and flowers that Montana summer day, I was facing the futility of trying to craft investment solutions without some basic consensus about the economic tapeworm that is killing us and all living things — while we blindly feed the worm. In a world of economic warfare, we have to see the strategy behind each play in the game. We have to see the economic tapeworm and how it works parasitically in our lives. A tapeworm injects chemicals into a host that causes the host to crave what is good for the tapeworm. In America, we despair over our deterioration, but we crave the next injection of chemicals from the tapeworm.

With this in mind, I decided to write “Dillon Read & Co Inc. and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits” as a case study designed to help illuminate the deeper system. It details the story of two teams with two competing visions for America.

The first was a vision shared by my old firm on Wall Street — Dillon Read — and the Clinton Administration with the full support of a bipartisan Congress. In this vision, America’s aristocracy makes money and finances the building of a global empire one neighborhood at a time by ensnaring our youth in a pincer movement of drugs and prisons. Middle class support for these policies is created through a steady and growing stream of government funding and contracts for War on Drugs activities at federal, state and local levels. This consensus is made all the more powerful by the gush of growing debt and derivatives used to bubble the housing and mortgage markets, manipulate the stock and precious metals markets and finance trillions missing from the US government in the largest pump and dump in history — the pump and dump of the entire American economy. This is more than a process designed to wipe out the middle class. This is genocide — a much more subtle and lethal version than ever before perpetrated by the scoundrels of our history texts.

This case study provides a detailed example of the financial kickback machinery that makes the process go.

“Straight Talk with Catherine Fitts:  We are Victims of a Financial Coup D’Etat“

1. Despite (or perhaps because of) your time as Assistant Secretary of Housing under Bush Sr., you are extremely critical of the government’s financial stewardship. What, if anything, changes with administrations and how much is institutionally baked into the cake?   [Answer:]The federal financial model is institutional, and its ultimate governance is outside of the government.

…the federal government lacks sovereignty. It lacks financial sovereignty – it is financially dependent on the banks that control its depository and slush funds, create the currency through the Federal Reserve and manage the accumulated capital of the same syndicates outside the government.

It lacks information sovereignty as its data, information, and payments systems are controlled and operated by private corporations, primarily defense contractors. If we could dig out the true ownership of both banks and defense contractors, my guess is that it would look identical.

[LGH:  See also THIS page on “Dillon & Read:  The Aristocracy,” which is “Brady, Bush, Bechtel & the Boys. . .

So, Looking Back on 15 yrs of Maryland’s Family Courts.

Justice reform in Maryland was formally launched in January of 1998 when the judges of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, headed by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell, signed Rule 16-204.  Babb, Barbara A., Maryland’s Family Divisions: Sensible Justice for Families and Children, 72 Md. L. Rev. 1124 (2013).  <=<=BOOKMARK, READ

I think, there you have it.  Robert Wood Johnson kickstarted the motion with the ABA, and the American Bar Association, continued pouring its funds (obtained FROM WHOM?  Lawyers’ membership fees?  Who pays their fees — clients, the public, the US government when it gets grants, who else???) into this “UFC” center.

UBaltimore School of Law’s Center, then — is that production.  It would be interesting to see if its budget were viewable separately.

When we see the private interests AND private money (foundation wealth) determining how to restructure our justice system — rather than the people themselves who live in these places — we have GOT to start accepting the truth of “Follow the Money” and from there, educating more of us on where the United States (and other) government have been keeping their various stockpiles

In January 1998, the judges of the Court of Appeals of Maryland signed Rule 16-2041 and formally launched the process of family justice system reform in Maryland. During the ensuing fifteen years, Maryland became a national model in this area. These changes and improvements occurred largely because of the inspirational leader- ship of Chief Judge Robert M. Bell, a man owed a debt of gratitude by everyone involved in family law proceedings, including families, children, attorneys, judges, court personnel, and services providers, among others.

This Tribute honors Chief Judge Bell by contextualizing the enormity of the process and outcomes resulting from his guidance and oversight.** It will begin in Part I by identifying the causes underlying the impetus and need for family justice system reform in Maryland. Part II will explain what Maryland Rule 16-204 does, the process surrounding implementation of the rule, and the mechanism for con- tinued oversight of the state’s family justice system. Part III will then describe the impact of the reform effort. The Tribute will conclude with a glimpse into the future and likely evolutions affecting Maryland’s family justice system.

I. WHY DID MARYLAND NEED FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM?

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, two formal study groups— the Governor’s Task Force on Family Law and the Advisory Council on Family Legal Needs of Low Income Persons***—analyzed Maryland’s body of family law and the legal system within which it operated. In their final reports, each group identified problems with Maryland’s existing family justice system and endorsed the creation of a unified  family court2 for Maryland, or a single state tribunal with comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction over cases arising from family breakups and those involving the status of children. Statistical data about family law case filings in Maryland confirmed the critical importance and dominance of this area of law. . . .

…Representatives from both study groups conducted exhaustive background research about and made site visits to several states with unified family courts.5

As a result of these efforts, both study groups recommended changes to Maryland’s family justice system. They advocated for the creation of a single court with independent facilities and staff and empowered with comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction over the full range of family law cases, including delinquency and dependency.6 They also urged that case management techniques assign a judge with expertise in domestic matters to remain on a case from start to finish.7

Finally, representatives of the study groups [[not the groups as whole??]] recommended that a family court offer certain services, such as mediation, and coordinate with other service providers within the community to address litigants’ non-legal needs, such as domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health issues, among others.8 In states with family courts, this system reduced duplicative proceedings and inconsistent orders, saved time and money for the parties and the state, resulted in greater litigant satisfaction, and enabled a holistic approach to family legal problems.9

---

[Footnotes from p.2:]

2. For a comprehensive explanation of the unified family court concept, see Barbara A. Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law: A Blueprint to Construct a Unified Family Court, 71 S. CAL. L. REV. 469 (1998).
3. MD. JUDICIARY ANNUAL REPORT 47 (1989–90).
4. See generally Barbara A. Babb, Family Court for Maryland: The Time Has Come, 25 MD. B.J.16 (1992).
Footnotes 5.,6,7.,8., and 9. all read “Id.”

NOTE How a Judge agreed to, if the legislation was NOT passed by the representative body designated constitutionally (Maryland) to pass such radical laws — he would bypass that, and ake it happen, as a judge, through an Administrative Rule. This was planned in advance as a deliberate way to bypass the will of the people expressed through their Legislature, as the assembled (self-selecting? Governor-appointed?) Task Forces and their associated professions, knew what’s best for the people of the state.

Great judges don’t seek to over-ride the law; aren’t they supposed to be presiding over what’s legal and not? So how is deliberate intent to undermine the legislative process a good thing? (see also history of Judge Bell, which is itself remarkable….. I can see why he would be the ideal person to approach with such an agenda):

MORE, from the same publication (date: 1-1-2013, Barbara Babb quoting, mostly, herself…see footnotes!);

For the better part of the 1990s, family court advocates, including concerned citizens, family law attorneys, bar leaders, mediators, services providers, legislators, legal scholars, and the Maryland Attorney General,* appeared annually before the Maryland General Assembly, including both the House of Delegates and the Senate, to testify in favor of proposed family court legislation and the recommendations for reform discussed above.11 While the proposed legislation often passed by an overwhelming majority in the House of Delegates, it never was called to a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee; thus, it never was introduced on the Senate floor. Nonetheless, in 1996, the General Assembly passed legislation funding a pilot program family division in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.12

Shortly after Chief Judge Bell’s appointment in 1996, a handful of advocates supporting the creation of a family court met with him to explain the need for family justice system reform, the proposed legis- lative solution, and obstacles interfering with the passage of the legislation. After devoting a few weeks to study and understand the issues, Chief Judge Bell called the advocates together. He said the concepts in the proposed legislation made sense and that implementing this type of family justice system reform was the right thing to do. He gave the advocates his word that, if the proposed legislation failed, he would work to create a court rule to accomplish the same or similar results.

---

Indeed, due to some minor issues [SUCH AS??], the proposed legislation failed during the 1997 session of the Maryland General Assembly.

. . . .

*not worth actually naming the Maryland Attorney General?

I want us to see that, this (Associate) Professor of Law is not even ashamed to publish in a law journal that “a handful of advocates” (names withheld) had a private meeting with a top judge, CUT A DEAL WITH HIM, on an issue he’d only studied for a few weeks, which the General Assembly was about to NOT pass again, and, take the law into his Administrative-Ruling capacity hands as a top judge hired to respect the laws, not write them, and not play favorites in which laws are administered into existence and are not.

Were there minutes to that meeting?  Notes?  Did they get special privileges for simply trying hard year after year (and failing) go get the legislative vote, and then, aw, what the heck, we’ll do a bypass of that process…

Apparently so!

Wonder what the minor issues were.

In fact, they were so minor, don’t trouble your pretty heads about them, and the author is too busy to reference, footnote, link, or even name what they were. In her judgment, it was a MINOR issue, so be it. You don’t even need to know the bill number (which might facilitate lookups and finding out just how “minor” it was?  Although, for some reason, the ones that passed WERE worth footnoting and naming.  Footnotes 12 and 13…

. . . .True to his word, Chief Judge Bell that summer directed the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, along with a few individuals specially appointed to the committee, to begin work crafting a court rule designed to create a family division as part of the circuit court system. The Rules Committee’s efforts resulted in the proposed Maryland Rule 16-204, signed by the judges of the Court of Appeals in January 1998, creating Maryland’s family divisions.13

Chief Judge Bell has earned his position, without question.  I would like to point out that his parents separated early, his mother relocated (something mothers nowadays will have to fight out in family courts, most likely) to Baltimore, and he ended up, well wouldn’t you say in pretty darned good shape?  Here’s an interview; from my July 2012 archive on this particular center, on how Fatherlessness obviously (except in Judge Bell’s and, inexplicably, many other notables’ lives) leads to a life of crime.

Wouldn’t it have been nice to know here, what “specific individuals” were appointed? ….

One more quote, which serves to demonstrate that the Rule basically created in 1998, a setup which was, to put it mildly an AFCC membership’s dream work environment — and some domestic violence victims, such as myself’s nightmare (and the rest of us, confusion over what is and is not domestic violence). I think the next quote should illustrate, the idea is to order parents (and kids) into services, mandate mediation where possible, and incorporate cases with DV under them, if possible to ONE Judge….

II. WHAT ARE MARYLAND’S FAMILY DIVISIONS?

---

Maryland Rule 16-204 authorizes the creation of a separate family division of the circuit court in jurisdictions with more than seven resi-dent judges.14 Those jurisdictions presently include Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Prince George’s County. The rule grants the family divisions comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction over the following types of cases: divorce, annulment, and property division; custody and visitation; alimony, spousal support, and child support; paternity, adoption, termination of parental rights, and emancipation; criminal nonsupport and desertion; name changes; guardianship of minors and disabled persons; involuntary admission to state facilities and emergency evaluations; family legal medical issues; domestic violence actions; juvenile causes, including delinquency and dependency; and civil and criminal contempt.15

---

Critical to the effective resolution of most family legal proceedings is an attempt to address any related underlying non-legal issues by providing or connecting the parties with supportive services.16
Rule 16-204 addresses these services in two ways. First, it mandates that the family divisions provide certain services, including mediation, custody investigations, emergency response personnel, mental health and substance abuse evaluations, information services with assistance for unrepresented litigants, lawyer referral services, and parenting seminars.17
[[Notice how parenting seminars got slipped in there…]]

---

Second, the rule requires the appointment of a family support services coordinator by the County Administrative Judge in each family division to compile available community-based support services, coordinate those services with the family division, and report to the County Administrative Judge on the need for additional services.18

For each family division, the County Administrative Judge also has the responsibility to ensure that cases are heard expeditiously, meaning that appropriate judicial resources must be assigned to the family division.19 To support this process, the County Administrative Judge also must identify cases within the family division that should be assigned to one judge for the entire case.20 Finally, the County Administrative Judge annually must prepare and submit to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals a written report describing the family support services needed by the family division, an estimate of the cost of these services, and an estimate of the jurisdiction’s financial need relative to the services.21

Unified Family Courts:  Treating the Whole Family, Not Just the Young Offender

From 1992 to 1996, RWJF funded the ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse’sCommunity Anti-Drug Coalition Initiativeto mobilize lawyers, judges, and justice system leaders to help create new justice systems and structures to solve the substance abuse problem (see Grant Results on ID#s 019838 and 023195).

The ABA was also instrumental in persuading legal community leaders to support drug courts for juveniles, which link juvenile justice and community treatment resources to juvenile drug offenders and their legal caretakers. The ABA then helped cities nationwide set up drug courts for adult offenders, which offer defendants who have been charged with a drug offense (typically first-time, non-violent offenders) court supervised substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. Drug courts can motivate drug users to enter rehabilitation programs and reestablish productive lifestyles. These courts have dramatically decreased recidivism rates and drug use among participants.

UFC’s complement the work of the drug courts. UFCs combine the functions of family courts (which handle family-related legal issues) and juvenile courts (which handle cases in which minors are involved) into one entity and provide a comprehensive approach to helping families in crisis. UFCs incorporate treatment for young substance abuse offenders into the wide range of cases heard in civil court involving family matters.

According to the project director, UFCs can produce better results than other court systems by intervening earlier in a child’s exposure to substance abuse, and treating and educating a defendant’s entire family.The family is assigned to one judge and one social services team throughout its relationship with the court. Judges coordinate treatment for the family with mediators, social workers, court personnel, case managers, and attorneys. In addition, administrative, legal, counseling, and enforcement services are available in or near the court building.

In 1994, ABA adopted a resolution calling for the promotion and implementation of UFC systems to make the courts more responsive to family problems. By 1996, six states had established versions of UFCs statewide, and four states had some UFCs operating on the county level

BALTIMORE’s, of these six:

• In Baltimore, Md., a pilot UFC was established in September 1998. The state legislature approved $1 million for the Baltimore pilot UFC project and $4 million to create Family Divisions in four other judicial districts. For each case, judges can order social services, including substance abuse and mental health counseling, and diversion programs. The Baltimore Family Court has also developed an assessment/evaluation procedure that the project director believes provides a replicable model for evaluation at other UFC sites.
• (OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO THIS in Washington, D.C. –as of Nov. 2000 anyhow):

• In Washington, D.C., the ABA worked on a strategy to establish a UFC. Judicial opposition to family court reform, based chiefly on economic concerns, blocked significant progress toward the UFC model. The ABA met with the Chief Judge, the primary opponent, and worked with UFC proponents in the District. Family and Child Services, a branch of the District of Columbia’s Child Protection Agency, and an ad hoc group of representatives from the judicial leadership and social service providers, have assumed the lead in efforts to explore the feasibility of a UFC approach in the District.[SIC:  ‘explore the feasibilty of = “to push.”]
• The ABA developed a network of national organizations to support UFCs. The American Judges Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and Join Together* (a national organization created by RWJF that provides technical assistance and information to communities on issues involving substance abuse and gun violence) distributed information and/or collaborated with the ABA on UFC programs.

MY SUMMARY COMMENTS:

I’ve known for a while to watch this particular “CFCC” in Baltimore, particularly as word travels fast, and there’s already a nice big fat one in California (only, under the Administrative Office of the Courts of the California Judicial Council — rather than at a law school, as in Baltimore).

I am simply reading some of the material describing how the family divisions were created. As I believe they need to be dismantled, for the very reasons they were set up, and as dangerous to the common man (among other things) — it’s helpful to look at how this happened.

When we see the private interests AND private money (foundation wealth) determining how to restructure our justice system — rather than the people themselves who live in these places — we have GOT to start accepting the truth of “Follow the Money” and from there, educating more of us on where the United States (and other) government have been keeping their various stockpiles.

Catherine A. Fitts explained it well enough for me — the profits from running drugs and arms, generally speaking, gets put into a lot of real estate (see “HUD”) after which it makes sense to drain the Americans further (after selling drugs to their inner cities, suburbs, etc.) by ordering them to support expensive treatment facilities, which may JUST come in real handy when people start catching onto this. “The Drugging and Treatment of America.”

I have never met any of the individuals involved in this. But I had no option to stay married. There should be a safe option for for leaving the abusive relationship. So long as these courts are around, that option will be a very rare option… As any extraordinary powers granted them to (so it’s said) HELP everyone, can be just as readily — and are — used to HURT people, why not just limit the authority by keeping civil and criminal matters separate?