Judicial Accountability

The article below is startling in that it is the FIRST-EVER California state audit to hold judges accountable. Judges are human beings and they have their own interests, weaknesses, and biases. They do NOT have any special immunities from accountability in their job performance.

The second article discusses the judiciary’s worn out excuse of “violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” This isn’t about separation of the legislative branch and the judicial branch, this is about checks and balances. The legislature has the right to investigate any branch of government for any reason and We the People need to ensure that this happens in every state of the nation.

First-Ever State Audit Aims to Hold Judges Accountable

Lawmakers have called for an audit of California’s Commission on Judicial Performance for the first time in the agency’s 56-year history.

The commission, which is responsible for disciplining judges, has drawn the ire of activists who say it protects bad jurists and from bench officers who say it over-penalizes them for minor missteps.

A joint audit committee of the California Legislature authorized the review in a unanimous vote this week. The audit will look at 26 issues, including whether the commission upholds due process when looking into allegations against judges and how investigators determine which complaints to dismiss.

In the past decade, the judicial commission has fielded anywhere from 900 to 1,200 complaints about judges each year. But 90 percent of those cases were closed right away, while more resulted in no discipline even after an investigation.

Only 3.4 percent ended in disciplinary action, and less than a percent led to public censure. None of these decisions were transparent.

Critics have demanded accountability for the judicial commission for years, claiming the agency works in secret and gives biased and inept judges a pass. In Santa Clara County, the criticism has largely centered on family court.

Continue Reading


California judicial watchdog agency sues over state audit                                     Greg Moran

The California agency that disciplines judges is suing the state auditor over the scope of an audit ordered this year by the Legislature, saying the probe is too broad and violates the constitutional separation of powers.

The Commission on Judicial Performance filed the suit Oct. 20 in San Francisco Superior Court. The agency contends allowing auditors to pore over its files of complaints and investigations against judges is barred by the constitution.

Continue Reading


State auditor blocked in seeking judicial records

Continue Reading

Advertisements

JUDGES ARE RE-INVENTING THE LAW

Carlson Blasts ‘Activist Judges’ on DACA, Deportations: ‘A Lot of Rot In Our Halls of Power’

Tucker Carlson on Wednesday detailed several examples of perceived judicial activism by upper-tier court judges.

Carlson said the judges were ignoring the Constitution and acting on their own political biases.

“There’s a lot of rot in our halls of power,” he said. “The federal courts may be the [most] decayed institution of all.”

He said there is no legal basis for the DACA program, since President Barack Obama created it “out of whole cloth.”

But, in turn, Carlson pointed to pointed to several judges who found that President Donald Trump has no legal basis to end the program benefiting illegal immigrants.

Carlson said their reactions are “legally ludicrous,” citing one judge who used Trump’s campaign trail speeches in his ruling.

DAVID HOGG HOLDS ANTI-GUN INTERVIEW-4 HOURS BEFORE SHOOTING?

Videos filmed by student journalist bring timeline into question

Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 21, 2018

Anti-gun activist and Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school student David Hogg interviewed classmates about gun control during what was believed to be the actual shooting.

However, unedited video shows Hogg saying he’s recording the interview at 9:32 on February 14th, 2018, almost 4 hours before the shooting took place.

Scroll to 0:57“This is Alex View, this recording is taken at 9:32 on February 14th 2018,” Hogg says. “Alex, are you ok with me recording this?”“Yes, I am ok with you recording this,” Alex responds.

“I personally have rallied for gun rights and less control, not necessarily less control but this experience has definitely changed my viewpoint,” she says.

What experience? The shooting drill, or the actual shooting that hasn’t happened yet?

“I wanted to be a junior NRA member, I wanted to learn how to hunt, I was always fascinated by guns as a young girl, but this experience was so traumatizing to the point where now I can’t even fathom the idea of a gun in my house.”

If that isn’t strange enough, there’s more that corroborates the time discrepancy.

In another video, Hogg whispers, “An hour into school. An active shooter. It’s not a drill.”

“An hour into school” would typically be about 9:30am.

But then he goes on to say, “it’s 2:52. I heard one gunshot and we thought it was a drill initially, but it’s not.”

The Silent Jihad

Facebook cut my show 3 times on the network! They do not want yooou to hear the truth! Please Share!

Todays Show On American Journal At 7pm Central: Z- List Actor Michael Rapaport Tells Laura Ingraham To Dribble These Nuts b****, Gun Debate Video Gone Viral, and Special Guests Aj Kern and Candidate For Governor Of MN Phillip C Parrish – Join Us As We Discuss The Refugee Resettlement The Silent Jihad! Trust Me You Don’t Want To Miss This!

Punished 4 Protecting: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and Michael Volpe Continue to Expose Crime, Corruption in Grazzini-Rucki Case

Listen in to “Punished 4 Protecting” with Francesca Amato-Banfield and guests Michael Volpe and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki discussing updates on her case and sharing audio testimony of one of the Rucki children describing abuse she suffered at her father’s hand, and the failure of the family courts to protect her. Michael Volpe calls this the “#Metoo moment of family court”. The audio can be heard at this link: S Rucki describes abuse at her father’s and courts hands.

Michael Volpe and Sandra also reveal shocking new evidence of mortgage fraud and RICO crimes being committed by ex-husband, David Rucki.

Here are the background documents referred to during this episode. Below is the docket for one of the trusts. Note that on November 1, 2017, there is an entry for “Petition for disbursement/release of funds”.

On the first page, who is the petitioner, David Rucki.
Michael Volpe says this is evidence that David Rucki is illegally taking money from a trust that he is not entitled to, “Here is a guy who has been embezzled from two trusts, this is just what we know, two trusts of Sam’s father meant for his children. And by the way he is effectively stealing from a dead man because her father is no longer alive...
Below is a photo of the other trust. Of note is that it says FBO, or for the beneficiary of, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki. All the money 1636.28 shares have been withdrawn, but as Ms. Grazzini-Rucki notes in the interview, she’s received none of it. Where did it go?
Michael Volpe says about the Grazzini-Rucki case:

What all of this is referred to is R.I.C.O. – racketeering influenced and corrupt organization, and that’s what you had. This entire divorce and if you go back to her (Sandra) parent’s guardianship, is one giant criminal conspiracy to embezzle, to hide abuse, to commit mortgage fraud, to get public officials to look the other way on all of it…it is no different than the rackets run by the Gambino family, it’s no different than any other R.I.C.O conspiracy..that’s how big this is and the F.B.I. should be involved…

Press Release: Defying Death, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s Testimony

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Defying Death: Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Pleads for Lives of her Children, Demands Justice
Dakota County, Minnesota – February 15, 2018 – Sandra Grazzini-Rucki speaks out about domestic violence, and family court failures to protect victims of abuse and their children, in recently released video “Defying Death”.
In the video, Sandra describes 20+ years of physical, sexual, emotional abuse, and cruelty, at the hands of her violent and controlling husband, David Rucki. After filing for divorce, the family court system became an extension of the abuse Sandra suffered. The judge presiding over the case, David L. Knutson, was chosen by Rucki, who had previous dealings with him in criminal court, and was given preferential treatment. In family court, Judge Knuston continued to favor Rucki and broke the law, and violated the Constitutional rights of Sandra in doing so. As a result of the over 4,000 orders Judge Knutson issued against Sandra, she is forcibly separated from her five children, homeless and destitute.
Judge Knutson and other court professionals failed to protect the children from abuse, and endangered their lives by giving custody to their father, perpetrator. The abuse Sandra, and the children, suffered is well documented (lengthy CPS file, police reports, statements from the children, recommendations from a social worker stating two of the children should be placed in foster care to protect them from Rucki, and more). When the children raised allegations of physical, sexual, and mental abuse from their father, Judge Knutson and court professionals not only ignored their cries for help but also pressured them to recant abuse. Two of Sandra’s daughters were so afraid for their lives that in April 2013, they ran away and went into hiding for two years. Sandra made national headlines after being charged for her role in assisting her daughters after they ran away. She plead the affirmative defense during her criminal trial, stating her actions were taken to protect her children imminent harm. Sandra was later convicted of parental deprivation after the judge presiding over her case (who also had past dealing with Rucki) suppressed 80% of evidence proving the abuse, which then prevented her from be able to prove her defense.
Sandra says Rucki is a risk to the community, and claims he has not only abused her children but has sexually abused another child. She points to Rucki’s lengthy criminal record, which includes violent offenses and numerous protective orders filed against him, to demonstrate what he is capable of. Sandra says Rucki should be criminally charged, and Judge Knutson, and others in the court, should be held accountable.
Sandra takes great risk in speaking out, in the video states she is “coming out of hiding”, meaning she fears retaliation for exposing the failures of family court, and the corruption in her case. Sandra continues to be stalked, harassed and threatened by Rucki and without protection from the legal system, her life remains in danger.
Defying death, Sandra has a message for her violent ex-husband, and the legal system that continues to protect and enable him, “You will not break me, I will not be silent. I will continue to fight. I will continue to speak out. I will continue to document and prove for the rest of my life, over and over, if I have to…but we are going to stop this, and in the end we will get justice.”
Source: The Coalition for Justice
E-Mail: defingdeath@protonmail.com
 The definitive dossier documenting David Rucki’s violence: 99 pages of police reports, orders for protection, letters, affidavits, and more…

AT WHAT POINT DOES TRUST IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM DIE?

Montana Judge Faces Call For Impeachment After Incest Sentencing

The sentence handed down in a trial for incest in rural Valley County, Mont., pictured here, has led to a call for the judge in the trial to be impeached.                    Matthew Brown/AP

 

A state district judge in Montana is facing a call for his impeachment after sentencing a man who admitted to raping his 12-year-old daughter to 60 days in jail, of which he will serve 43.

A petition posted on the website Change.org calling for the impeachment of the Valley County, Mont., district court judge, John McKeon, has more than 55,000 signatures. The petition states, “Judge McKeon did not uphold the responsibility of ensuring justice as he is required to in his elected position.”

This is not the first time in Montana that outrage has followed a sentence for raping a child. Earlier this year, the state Supreme Court left intact a 10-year sentence for a man who raped a 14-year-old girl. He had originally been sentenced to just one month in prison by a different state judge.

According to the National Center for State Courts, to impeach a judge in Montana two-thirds of the state Legislature must vote for it, or the state’s judicial standards commission may recommend it to the state Supreme Court.

The current case originally appeared before McKeon in February, when a 40-year-old man from Valley County, Mont., was indicted on three counts of incest for allegedly raping his daughter multiple times, according to court records.

We are not naming the defendant or his family members because doing so could also identify the victim in the case. NPR does not name survivors of sexual assault without their permission.

In July, the defendant and the state reached a plea agreement. The deputy county attorney for Valley County, who was prosecuting the case, agreed to dismiss two of the three charges if the defendant pleaded guilty to committing one count of incest on Nov. 18, 2015.

Plea agreement

The plea agreement recommended a prison sentence of 100 years with 75 years suspended, so the defendant would spend 25 years in prison, as well as the “educational phase and cognitive behavioral phase of a sexual offender treatment program,” $80 in court fees and any future cost of “psychological counseling, therapy and treatment” for the victim.

Those recommendations were in keeping with the minimum punishment under Montana state law, which court documents state as:

“A person convicted of the offense of incest where the victim is 12 years of age or younger and the offender 18 years of age or older at the time of offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 100 years and fined an amount not to exceed $50,000. The court may not suspend execution or defer imposition of the first 25 years of the sentence.”

But although the defendant, his lawyer, Casey Moore, and the state attorney prosecuting the case, Dylan Jensen, all signed the plea agreement, the official sentencing was still up to McKeon. And the judge had some leeway, because under Montana law, there is room for an exception to the minimum sentence for incest.

The sentencing exception

The law states that the defendant can argue for a lesser punishment if a psychosexual evaluation by a “qualified sexual offender evaluator … recommends that treatment of the offender while in a local community affords a better opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender and for the ultimate protection of the victim and society.”

At a sentencing hearing in October, a member of the Montana Sex Offender Treatment Association named Michael Sullivan, who had evaluated the defendant, testified that “the defendant could be safely treated … in the community, that such community treatment was available” in a nearby town and “that the defendant would benefit from such community-based treatment,” according to court documents.

The prosecution did not contest Sullivan’s findings, according to court records.

The victim’s mother wrote in a letter to the court, “I do not feel 25 years in prison is necessarily the best way for the defendant to pay for what he has done.” The letter continued:

“The defendant made a horrible choice. He needs help — not to spend 25 years locked up. He has 2 sons that still love him and need their father in their lives, even with very understandable restrictions. I would like to see my children have an opportunity to heal the relationship with their father. … He is not a monster, just a man that really screwed up and has been paying in many ways since and will continue to have to pay through this justice system and with the loss of family and friends and his own conscience.”

The victim’s maternal grandmother also wrote a letter to the court, part of which appears in McKeon’s sentencing judgment. “What [the defendant] did to my granddaughter was horrible, and he should face consequences,” she wrote, “But his children, especially his sons, will be devastated if their dad is no longer part of their lives.”

Court records say the defendant’s daughter, the victim in the case, did not attend the sentencing hearing. No one testified on her behalf.

43 days in jail

In a judgment filed Oct. 17, McKeon sentenced the defendant to 30 years in prison with all 30 years suspended, plus 60 days in county jail. Taking into account the 17 days the defendant had served, the total jail sentence came to 43 days, plus $80 in court fees and future medical costs incurred by his daughter.

The sentence also requires the defendant to register publicly as a sex offender, which state records show he has, and attend a sex-offender treatment program. For the next 30 years, it also restricts his access to the Internet, denies him the right to own a computer or possess pornography of any kind, and prevents him from owning firearms or having contact with anyone under 18 without supervision.

In all, there are more than 40 requirements that, if he violates them, require that the defendant serve the remainder of the sentence in prison.

In his written judgment, McKeon said the “lack of input directly from the victim … or directly from an advocate for the victim” and the “uncontested report and testimony that the defendant would be safely treated … in the community” factored into his decision. He also noted “the defendant is now employed in the community, has established a support group within the community, and has support of a church that he regularly attends.”

McKeon defended his decision to The Associated Press, pointing out that “the defendant’s suspended sentence has numerous restrictions.”

But the petition against McKeon calls the decision “horrible,” stating, “60 days in prison with a suspended 30 year sentence does not match the crime and fails to acknowledge the horrors the victim had to endure.”

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the group organizing the petition, Justice4Montana, said it had been sent via email to Montana Sens. Jon Tester and Steve Daines as well as the chief clerk for the Montana House of Representatives, State Rep. Austin Knudsen and Gov. Steve Bullock, but that none of the six people had confirmed receiving the document.

Denying McKeon his state pension, rather than removing him from the bench, appears to be the ultimate goal of the petition. That is probably because, as the local Havre Daily News reported, McKeon plans to retire in November after 22 years as a judge.

“I’ve tried to do my job studiously, hardworking and timely and confidently throughout this entire tenure,” McKeon told the paper.

“A lot of these cases are emotional cases, cases that carry with them a certain amount of stress,” he said. “There’s something that might weigh with you for some time, until you might make a ruling.”

But, he said, “Once I make a decision, I’ve got to move on. That’s what the appellate courts are for.”

Thus far, no appeal has been filed in the case.


Related

Judge McKeon Issus a statement!

Montana judge retires following rape-sentencing outrage


Child Rapist Gets Stayed Prison Term, 20 Years Probation

 

Dakota County Judge David L. Knutson let a child rapist, with a lengthy criminal history, walk free after he pleaded guilty to a brutal assault on a child.

Most readers are aware that Judge David Knutson is the judge that reopened Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s marital dissolution/custody case in 2011 and stripped her of her children, property and finances.

2013 Complaint Against Judge David L. Knutson Alleges Misconduct, Malice

A complaint filed against Judge David L. Knutson on September 4, 2013, outlines his mishandling of the Grazzini-Rucki case. The complaint also describes how Judge Knutson’s reckless actions contributed to ongoing chaos in the lives of the Rucki children, and deprived Sandra Grazzini-Rucki of her rights. The complaint concludes that Judge Knutson acted with malice, that there is no other reasonable explanation for his conduct.

According to the complaint, “The record on case no. 19AV-FA-11-1273 shows a disturbing pattern where throughout, Judge Knutson has engaged in multiple acts of misconduct and actual bias, has repeatedly violated parties rights, and consistently fails to follow the law…

Judge Knutson has repeatedly denied the mother (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki) any and all contact with her children without any findings of endangerment, abuse or parental unfitness. In addition, throughout this case, Judge Knutson has made absurd statements in an attempt to somehow justify abuses of discretion.“    Continue Reading

The Board of Judicial Standards determined, despite overwhelming evidence, that the complaint “required no further action“. The Board further determined that the allegations did not sway them to take disciplinary action because the merits were not proven with a “clear and convincing standard“.

Retaliatory action was taken however, against Sandra’s attorney Michelle MacDaonald for bringing these claims forward and for suing Judge David Knutson.  Cataclysmic Cover-Up

Reataliatory actions were also taken against me and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki in our rigged criminal trials, convictions and sentencing. We were convicted of six felony counts of parental deprivation  (1 count for each of the girls, 2 counts involving David Rucki, and 2 counts involving paternal aunt Tammy Love.) Seriously, that’s not messed up at all!

Guidelines presume a probationary sentence, however, Judge Asphaug (Judge Knutson’s minion), exceeded her authority by sentencing us to two concurrent stayed year-and-a-day prison terms and two consecutive four-year probation terms with no ability to receive an early discharge. See Special Conditions Below:

Our appeals were denied, even though the lower courts departed so far from the accepted and usual course of justice so as to require an exercise of the higher court’s supervisory powers. This simply demonstrates the collusion at all levels of the Minnesota Court System and why remedy and redress is only going to happen outside of the system.

The prevailing message being sent to citizens is that “It’s okay to rape children…It’s not okay to protect them!”


RedHerringAlert

Follow Red Herring Alert:
Facebook  Twitter