< Title IV-D Employee Embezzles Quarter of Million in Child Support Enforcement Money | Meet Susan Borovich, St. Clair County's Slave Master >
Friday, February 9. 2007
Thanks Goes To Suzanne Blonder at Halt.Org
Suzanne Blonder from http://www.halt.org wrote an excellent piece in the Detroit News regarding "Private Punishment of Judges Fails to Protect Public." We appreciate the fact that Halt has been monitoring the Michigan Judiciary. Some of you may remember the piece last month about the mass dismissals by the Judicial Tenure Commission and the JTC's complete disregard for explaining the dismissals. See the article HERE. Copies of all complaints filed against Michigan's Judiciary should continue to be sent to Halt via fax or mail so they can continue to receive feedback on the problems surrounding Michigan's Judiciary. Thank you Halt!
Opinion: Private punishment of judges fails to protect public
Suzanne M. Blonder
A feud between Michigan Supreme Court justices over the confidentiality of their deliberations has begun to throw much needed sunlight on a state judiciary that has operated behind closed doors for far too long. Justice Elizabeth Weaver's recent call for transparency should extend to the state's secretive system for disciplining and removing judges who have abused their power on the bench.
On Jan. 17, the Michigan high court conducted a hearing to identify reforms needed to fix the state's badly broken Judicial Tenure Commission -- the body charged with taking action against unethical state judges. The loudest sounding call came from citizens demanding more information about judges' misconduct and some examination of the hundreds of complaints dismissed annually without written explanations.
Every day, individuals appear in Michigan courts without knowing whether the judge presiding over their case has any history of misconduct because the vast majority of discipline against judges in the state takes the form of private, closed-door sanctions. We wish we knew what sorts of offenses got pushed under the rug -- but that is precisely the problem: we are not told. A judge may have flagrantly violated the state's Code of Judicial Conduct, repeatedly mistreated litigants or even accepted bribes from lawyers -- and in most cases, we would never be the wiser.
Without naming names, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission found 35 major ethical transgressions by state judges in 2005 -- not merely alleged violations, but proven offenses. Only two of those cases resulted in formal, public discipline. In the other 33 instances, the Commission elected to issue confidential sanctions and to purposefully seal all information from the public record.
Because private sanctions hold no real professional consequences, judges have nothing to fear from these informal slaps on the wrist. Closed-door discipline simply does not function as a meaningful deterrent against abuses of judicial power. In a system where, according to a 2001 Justice at Stake study, more than one in four Americans doubts judges' honesty and half believe judges are "controlled by special interests," an open record of judges' conduct is critical.
But simply publicizing sanctions is not enough to protect Michigan's litigants. Ninety-five percent of the complaints received by the Judicial Tenure Commission in 2005 were quickly dismissed without any explanation, leaving litigants to wonder whether their complaints received any real consideration and calling into question the integrity of the process. And strictly from a practical point of view, a token notification of a dismissal without an explanation prompts many to file new inquiries which, in turn, sap commission resources.
Explaining the decision to dismiss would help the commission avoid the appearance of impropriety and, more important, demonstrate respect for citizens' rights to voice concerns about judicial misconduct.
Public accountability for Michigan's judges may be just around the corner. Given the vocal call for transparency recently raised at the hearing, the state Supreme Court now enjoys a real opportunity -- to transform the Judicial Tenure Commission into a model system of transparent judicial oversight that strengthens citizens' trust in their local judges and restores integrity to the state's third branch. Do the hundreds of thousands of parties who come before judges every year in Michigan courtrooms deserve any less?
Suzanne M. Blonder is senior counsel at HALT -- An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform, a nonprofit public interest group in Washington, D.C. E-mail: letters@detnews.com.
Posted by Lary Holland
at
04:02
| Comment (1)
| Trackbacks (0)
Related entries by tags:
Fathers - 4- Justice Planning March Sunday July 26, 2009 (Parents Day)
Kernville man dies after stabbing in child-custody dispute
Article About the Deaths Associated With Family Court
Get Your Justice Live is Get Off The Bench: Add this to your myspace, blog, and websites.
Peter Van De Voorde Joins Get Your Justice Live from Australia.
Fathers - 4- Justice Planning March Sunday July 26, 2009 (Parents Day)
Kernville man dies after stabbing in child-custody dispute
Article About the Deaths Associated With Family Court
Get Your Justice Live is Get Off The Bench: Add this to your myspace, blog, and websites.
Peter Van De Voorde Joins Get Your Justice Live from Australia.
__________________________
Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
Request for Investigation
(Attachment to Complaint Form)
Complaint:
1. Denial of Due Process
2. Abuse of Discretion
3. Violation of Civil Rights
In this attachment I, Douglas M. Richardson, will describe the chronology of events upon which this complaint is based. The facts I discuss are supported by the attached documentation.
On March 23, 1992, I appeared before the Honorable Chief Judge Eugene C. Penzien in my action for divorce against Bonnie A. Richardson (Lauria Lower Court File # 91-7019 DMS). As noted on the record, despite my request for an attorney, Judge Penzien denied me my right to counsel in this proceeding.
At this hearing, I raised the issue of paternity prior to the judgment of divorce, specifically seeking to get genetic testing performed on the children. DNA testing, along with my request for a continuance, was denied.
During the March 23, 1992 hearing, Ms. Richardson and I jointly presented a consent agreement to the court for approval. This agreement had been drafted by Ms. Richardson’s counsel and recommended by the Friend of the Court. Upon presentation of the agreement, Judge Penzien accused me of trying to sell my children and made personal references to his own family. He refused to order me visitation, but did order me to pay for child support and health insurance.
After appealing Judge Penzian’s order, I was able to get genetic testing done. On September 17, 1992, the test results proved that the eldest child of the marriage was indeed not my biologically mine. At this time, the child was living with his mother and his biological father, Abraham Flores.
On January 11, 1993, I filed an appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals for error and abuse of discretion (Docket # 157567) for Judge Penzian’s refusal to accept the agreement between Ms. Richardson and me relating to child support and visitation. The Court of Appeals, however, declined to hear the appeal because it was not properly submitted or timely filed.
On June 11, 1997, Mr. Flores, Ms. Richardson’s live-in boyfriend and the eldest child’s biological father, was arrested and convicted (via plea agreement) of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and a felony firearms charge. He had violently threatened to kill his biological child, my biological child, and Ms. Richardson.
On April 10, 2001, Ms. Richardson abandoned both of the children and left them with this man. She sent a handwritten letter to the Friend of the Court Office requesting an abatement and redirection to Mr. Flores of the child support payments I had been ordered to pay. The very next day, on April 11, 2001, the Friend of the Court submitted a petition and order changing the payee. Chief Judge Kenneth Schmidt signed this order and I was forced to pay Mr. Flores child support for his biological child as well as my own. I received no notice prior to this order being issued. This was a clear violation of my parental rights since the court failed to provide the 21-day waiting period in which it was supposed to notify all parties (1982 PA 294, MCL 522.517; the fact of this violation is also supported by the March 17, 2005 memorandum from Daniel Wright, Director of the Friend of the Court Bureau).
On March 23, 2006, I filed a motion with the Bay County Circuit Court to amend the modification of the consent order and the stipulation of support. During the hearing, and as is evidenced in the record, the Chief Judge Kenneth Schmidt demonstrated his clear bias in this case. He openly misconstrued facts and issues relating to the case and my arguments, referring to how competent both my attorney (I never even had an attorney because my right to counsel had been denied) and the prior judge had been. The judge even stated that there would be no difference in my being ordered to pay a grandmother child support than Mr. Flores. This is patently false since a grandmother would have no support obligations whereas a biological father certainly does. Mr. Flores should have been responsible for supporting his own child; there was simply no legal or commonsense rationale for forcing me to pay another man to raise his child.
A settlement was reached at this hearing. According to the terms, I was released from my obligation to pay the arrears to Mr. Flores and my visitation rights to my biological child were restored. However, I was ordered to reimburse the State of Michigan for social services rendered to Ms. Richardson and Mr. Flores.
Based upon suspicions I had after statements made at this hearing, I filed a complaint of Welfare Fraud against Ms. Richardson and Mr. Flores. The Michigan Inspector General’s Office investigated this complaint and confirmed the fraud. As a result, the medical providers and pharmacies the State had paid had to refund that money back to the State. Despite this, I am still under court order to pay these same monies that have already been refunded to the State.
In addition to the complaint for Welfare Fraud, based upon a recommendation from the Governor’s Office, I filed grievances with the Bay County Friend of the Court Office for employee misconduct and procedural violations it committed relating to the abatement and redirection of support. I filed my first of three grievances with the Director of the Bay County Friend of the Court Office on November 27, 2006. I then filed two additional grievances after my original grievance was not answered within the 30-day limit prescribed under Michigan law. Since the Friend of the Court Office had failed to meet its legal duties, I followed the grievance procedures and took my complaint to the Chief Judge of the Bay County Circuit Court. Within five days I got a response from the Chief Judge’s office stating he had talked with the Director of the Friend of the Court Office and she had assured him she was working on a response to my grievance and would copy him on her answer. I waited another 15 days without hearing anything. At this point, I resubmitted my complaint to the Chief Judge and copied Mr. Wright, the Director of the Friend of the Court Bureau. By this time, it had been 71 days since I had filed my initial grievance, and the 30-day limit had expired on all three grievances. Shortly thereafter, I was copied on a letter from Mr. Wright’s office, which was addressed to the Bay County Friend of the Court Office requesting an answer to my grievance.
Within five days of Mr. Wright’s letter, I received answers to all three grievances at once. None had received a file number and each was denied because they were stated to be outside of the scope of the grievance procedure to address office operations or employee conduct. In response, I filed a letter of dissatisfaction with the chief judge, in which I once again showed how my complaints were clearly within the bounds and jurisdiction of the grievance process. The Chief Judge responded supporting the Friend of the Court’s decision, even boldly capitalizing “DENIED.” His dismissal of letter and of this matter is indicative of bias for another arm of the court and an abrogation of his duties. This is only bolstered by the fact that this was the same judge that signed the abatement and redirection in 2001 in violation to the procedural requirements of Michigan law.
The Bay County Friend of the Court Office and its employees have abused their authority and discretion and continue to do so. They, as well as these two Bay County Circuit Court judges, have consistently denied me my rights in efforts to protect themselves and avoid justice. This has been done knowingly and willfully, and their violation of the law and my rights must not be allowed to continue. As such, I have included all of the supporting documentation for the above-stated facts and formally request that the Michigan Tenure Commission conduct a full investigation and hold the responsible parties to the highest accountability under the laws of Michigan.
Sincerely,
Douglas M. Richardson