Recalling Rogue Judges

Recalls on Family Court Judges Continue

 By CPPA Website  24 Feb, 2018

Santa Clara and Solano Counties have been in the news regarding the recall of judges.  One recall has made it to the ballot, the first recall for a judge in CA in 86 years.  Other recalls have made a point:  protective parents and the #MeToo movement will not stand for bad judges.  It is unclear if these recalls are all a product of the lack of transparency and discipline from the Commission on Judicial Performance since most of the complaints made about judges are dismissed regardless of the validity of the complaints as we have seen.

The Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky recall has made it to the June 5, 2018 ballot after collecting 95,000 signatures.  Judge Persky has previously sat on the family court bench, including being a judge for part of the family matter of  Alycia Mesiti-Allen who was forced into custody with her abusive father who later murdered her.

Another recall that we are just hearing about is for Judge Cynthia Lie in Santa Clara.  It appears the first papers were filed in this matter and more information will be forthcoming.

Solano County has a history of recalls though.  In fact they have had five recalls in the past five years.  The Solano protective parents are calling this their “Five in Five.”  Here is a list of their recalls:

  • 2013 – Judge Daniel Healey, who was subsequently publicly admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance and moved out of family court
  • 2014 – Judge Cynda Riggins-Unger, who still serves on the family court bench
  • 2017 – Judge Christine Carringer, who still serves on the family court bench
  • 2017 – Judge Garry Ichikawa, who immediately announced his retirement
  • 2018 – Judge Cynda Riggins-Unger, served again and may be leaving family court

The 2017 recall of Judge Carringer did not get enough signatures to get on the ballot with the deadline being this past week.  The process to get a recall on the ballot is cost prohibitive, but the point is made regardless.  Protective parents are tired of abuse being dismissed in family court and children being forced into the custody of a named abuser.

See the full Persky Recall article here .

See the full Solano County recall article here .

Advertisements

Former Arkansas Judge Sentenced To Prison

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                               Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Former Arkansas State Judge Sentenced to Prison for Dismissing Cases in Exchange for Personal Benefits and Tampering With a Witness

A former Arkansas state judge was sentenced to five years in prison for perpetrating a seven-year-long fraud and bribery scheme in which he dismissed pending cases in exchange for personal benefits, including sexually related conduct, and then bribed a witness in an attempt to obstruct an official investigation into the scheme.  Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division made the announcement.

O. Joseph Boeckmann, 71, of Wynne, Arkansas, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker of the Eastern District of Arkansas.  Judge Baker also ordered the defendant to to serve three years of supervised release following his prison sentence and pay a fine of $50,000, to account for the financial harm he caused through his fraud scheme.

According to admissions in his plea agreement, from 2009 to 2015, Boeckmann corruptly used his official position as a district judge for the First Judicial Circuit of Arkansas to dismiss traffic citations and misdemeanor criminal charges for young men in exchange for acts that he claimed were “community service,” but which actually benefited Boeckmann himself.  Boeckmann took official action to order these individuals to perform “community service” and used his access to these individuals during their purported “community service” to take photographs of them in compromising positions.  In other cases, Boeckmann dismissed pending charges against defendants in exchange for sexually related conduct.

Boeckmann, who pleaded guilty to wire fraud and witness tampering in October 2017, admitted that the corrupt use of his office defrauded the State of Arkansas and its citizens of their right to Boeckmann’s honest services and also defrauded various cities and counties in Arkansas, as well as the State of Arkansas and the Arkansas courts, of money and property that they should have received as fines or fees from the individuals whose cases were fraudulently dismissed.

Boeckmann also admitted that during his scheme, he instructed various individuals not to tell anyone about their “community service” sentences.  Then, after Boeckmann learned he was under investigation, he tampered with at least one witness in an attempt to keep his scheme secret.  Specifically, in the fall of 2015, Boeckmann learned of a witness who had provided information to the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission (JDDC) regarding Boeckmann’s practice of imposing personally beneficial “community service” sentences.  Boeckmann directed another individual to pay the witness to write a letter recanting the information the witness gave to the JDDC.  According to his own admissions, Boeckmann did this in order to prevent that witness from providing truthful information about Boeckmann to law enforcement and to influence, delay and prevent that witness’s testimony in an official proceeding.

The FBI investigated this case with assistance of the Arkansas State Police and the JDDC.  Trial Attorneys Peter Halpern, Jonathan Kravis and Simon Cataldo of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section prosecuted the case, with assistance from Special Prosecutor Jack McQuary of the State of Arkansas Office of the Prosecutor Coordinator.


RELATED

Former AR Judge Gets 5 Years in Prison

Image result for Joseph Boeckmann

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

Knuckle Dragging Thug

Former judge accused of rape, human trafficking indicted on more Kentucky charges

Judicial Discipline

Disciplinary hearing set for Family Court judge

 Rena Hughes, candidate for Family Court judge, Dept. J, speaks with the Review-Journal editorial board on Monday, March 3, 2014. (Mark Damon/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

Rena Hughes, candidate for Family Court judge, Dept. J, speaks with the Review-Journal editorial board on Monday, March 3, 2014. (Mark Damon/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

Updated February 2, 2018 – 9:11 pm

A disciplinary hearing has been set for Family Court Judge Rena Hughes to address allegations that she improperly held a mother in contempt of court during a custody battle.

At a hearing in June 2016, Hughes awarded a girl’s father temporary custody, then threatened to send the girl, who cried during the court proceeding, to Child Haven, a shelter for abused and neglected children, if she refused to go with her father, according to a formal statement of charges from the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. The judge did not give a reason for the contempt order, according to the commission’s complaint.

Hughes told the girl that Child Haven was akin to jail for kids.

The commission stated that Hughes violated judicial canons, including “failing to be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants,” and “failing to promote confidence in the judiciary.”

In response to the charges, a lawyer for Hughes, Bill Terry, denied the allegations and pointed to various mitigating factors including the judge’s “good character and good reputation, her lack of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest and selfish motive,” and cooperation with a judicial ethics panel.

“What this case really involves is parental alienation and an attempt to manipulate the court in an effort to deny a parent the right to see their child,” Terry told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

“What isn’t part of the complaint is that this case had a huge, long history of the parents fighting for the child to the point where the child was refusing to comply with what was a court order,” he said. “The court has to act in the best interest of a minor child, and the best interest of the minor child was that she had contact with both her natural father and her natural mother.”

Hughes is scheduled to appear before the commission on May 29.

Meanwhile, another Family Court judge, William Potter, has completed his two-month suspension and is abiding by the terms of disciplinary action taken against him in November, according to Paul Deyhle, the commission’s executive director.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/disciplinary-hearing-set-for-family-court-judge/

Contact David Ferrara at dferrara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039. Follow @randompoker on Twitter.


PAS as a “custody switching tactic.”  Kids can definitely be turned against a parent and demonstrate alienating behaviors but PAS to switch custody is a scheme in which mothers are primarily pathologized and blamed for interfering with their children’s attachment to their fathers. The scheme is funded by fathers’ rights extremist groups who in turn are funded by federal grants.

There are many terrific and honest  father`s rights groups across the U.S. that promote fairness and equality between mothers and fathers working towards the best interest of the children.  Unfortunately, there are also wide spread corrupt fathers’ rights groups that pocket federal grant funds while allowing severe trauma to children.

Fathers Rights – is the term used for the federal funding used in the fraud and corruption. Fathers Manifesto Groups discovered a malicious way to take advantage of the billions handed to State Agencies and abuse and control their ex-girlfriend/spouse.

Hatred of Women a Common Theme – A number of leaders of fathers’ custody advocacy groups are clearly misogynistic and use their Internet sites to exhort men to take action against ex-wives, using hate-filled language. They are described as displaying virulent misogyny, spreading false anti-woman propaganda and applauding and even encouraging acts of domestic terrorism and extreme violence against women and children, up to and including murder.

  • 95% of sexual molestation of girls and 90% of sexual molestation of boys are by men.
  • 70% of abusive fathers are the winners in custody fights.
  • ”The Parental Alienation Syndrome theory” is used almost exclusively against women.
  • Statements by Dr. Richard Gardner “…pedophilia is an accepted practice by billions of people”  “…our society’s response to it is ‘excessively moralistic and punitive.”  “…there is a certain amount of pedophilia in all of us.”  “a mother’s hysterics [to child molestation]…will contribute to the child’s feeling that a heinous crime has been committed.”
  • The “true” victims according to PAS: Fathers are “victims of mothers’ viciousness and vindictiveness.” Judges are “manipulated by mothers.”
  • Sub-conclusion: 94-98.5% of sexual abuse allegations made by either children or their mothers are true
  •  In this largest national study to examine intentionally false allegations, CIS-98 found Deliberate false allegations mostly by fathers

Fathers Rights and THEIR Corrupt Judicial Cronies

A short history of how judges set up a secret system to rig cases for men The Liz Library

Fathers’ Rights activists have made themselves well known.  While they have been successful as promoting themselves as underdogs fighting for equal parenting in a society and legal system which is rigged for women, a closer look at their history, their leaders, their literature and web sites shows a very different story.  Not only are they directly affiliated with a secretive group of judges who handle much of their case litigation, but they are also affiliated with published incest promoters – Gardner, Underwager and Farrell. 

Many of them, especially their leaders,  are very bad-dads who are out to beat the system and destroy the mother of their children because her legal rights and the child’s natural bond with their own mother, threaten his need to have the advantage, and especially to evade financial obligations and abuse charges.  While their public chatter is about being disenfranchised by a system which places little to no value on the father-child relationship, their private activities and discussion show that they have been very successful in changing state custody laws to their advantage, and changing custody and support orders in their own cases to their advantage.  Many of these purported underdogs have sole custody and receive child support.  The sociopathy of this movement has had a very profound affect not only at its victims, but also on government policy and programs which is tilting toward an official policy of rejecting family violence and abuse complaints as vengeful acts by “bitter” ex-spouse, and eliminating post-divorce financial obligations for women.

AFCC: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts   The AFCC has many state chapters which conduct conferences, seminars and workshops on their “latest” practices for handling divorce, custody and related family & children litigation.  Most of the identified AFCC professional members routinely practice anti-woman, pro-abuser father PAS tactics against mothers who complain of child abuse by the father.  Most have a documented history of rubber-stamping every mother as an mentally unstable alienator who is the cause of all the problems and unfit to be around her children.  Of course, they know the truth of what they are really doing – is to trump up reasons to make the mother look bad so they can justify recommending sole custody a father accused of domestic violence, child abuse or support delinquencies.

Fathers’ Custody Advocacy Groups’ Main Strategies

The Push for Joint Custody: The fathers’ custody activists claim that both legal and  physical joint custody is in the best interest of the child. But it is no coincidence that joint custody drastically reduces the father’s child support payments and other financial obligations (health insurance, day care, etc.).

Efforts to make joint custody presumptive by state statute are ongoing around the country for this very reason. In reality, after joint custody is agreed to or ordered by the court, many mothers often have the child or children most of the time, while the reduced child support payment from the father negatively impacts the mother’s ability to support the child or children.

Additionally, in many families where the parents are married, time spent with and provision of daily care of the children are not evenly shared by the two parents while they are together. There is no reason to impose a presumption of joint legal and physical custody on families when they have not previously chosen this arrangement for themselves.

The Use of an Accusation of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) as an Offense or Defense in Court: Fathers are urged by some fathers’ custody activists to say the mother is alienating the child from the father and harming the child’s mental health. The fathers hire mental health professionals or others not well qualified who will testify (frequently for a substantial fee) that the mothers are alienating the children. In many cases, the fathers are abusive to the mothers and/or the children, or are using the children to harass or control the mother – leading the children to not want to visit the father. The accusation is most often used to deflect charges of abuse made by the protective mother.

More on Fathers Rights local groups:  
While they try to appear as independent people united at the grass roots to fight individual injustices – they are in reality cogs in a highly organization national scheme to recruit male litigants into the AFCC-CRC organized litigation racket.  The men are used to keep the case litigation as active as possible so each court hearing can be billed to federal HHS-ACF program funds.

We all need to have the basic understanding of the federal funding as it really is the heart of the entire system. It’s important to analyze the situation in the courts and come to some conclusions about cause and effect — not just that the effects are really devastating.

The best interests of the child is one safe, secure home, no shifts like cattle mid-week or bi-weekly or seasonally, unless all wish them to go. The best father, once divorced, paves the way to his family’s door with good behavior, with kindness, and generosity. Not the good behavior, kindness and generosity mandated by a court—for that is meaningless.

FATHERHOOD.GOV

List of various resources on family law issues. See http://www.thelizlibrary.org/