Friday, January 21, 2011

Real Pitchforks in Richmond against Judge Gaylord Finch of Fairfax Virginia

Published on Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com)

By Examiner Staff Writer

Created Feb 10 2009 - 12:00am

UPDATE: Real pitchforks in Richmond

Comments (0)

The letter below was delivered to members of the Virginia General Assembly by an ad hoc group that calls itself The Pitchfork Rebellion - which is opposed to the reappointment of two Circuit Court judges. The group stormed down to Richmond today with real pitchforks.
To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is to convey our serious concerns about the process by which judges are selected in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the condition of our judiciary.

We are a group of citizens from across the Commonwealth of Virginia. We have come together to oppose the re-appointment of Judge Finch to the Fairfax County Circuit Court and Judge Hauler to the Chesterfield Country Circuit Court.

As dutiful citizens, we have attempted to follow this process as closely as possible as well as actively and meaningfully participate in the process. However, we have been, for the most part, shut out of the process and deliberately silenced.

We decry Judge Hauler’s attempt to quell public opposition to his re-appointment by means of a $5.35M lawsuit against his former clerk and his recent written threat to sue his neighbor Brenda Stewart, who has also spoken out publically against him.

We are gravely concerned that Judge Finch apparently lied to the Courts of Justice Committee during his second judicial interview on January 10, 2009 when asked about the landmark school re-districting case Pascale et al vs. Fairfax County School Board.

When questioned about this important case by Senator Cuccinelli, Judge Finch said he was unprepared to hear the case at trial. However, Judge Finch told the legislators the reason was that he had been assigned to the case only ten minutes before trial as an excuse. However, the official record of action in this case clearly shows Judge Finch was assigned the case three full weeks before trial and had ample opportunity to review the case before trial.

We’ve enclosed an audio CD of Judge Finch’s second judicial interview in which you will hear judge Finch make that assertion as well as the official record of action.

We applaud Senator Martin, Senator Cuccinelli and Senator Marsden for taking the citizen complaints against these judges seriously and acting responsibly.

We denounce Delegate Vivian Watts, who chaired the second judicial interview of Judge Finch, for refusing to allow a private citizen to read the one page statement of an indigent man named Wesley Smith, who alleged that Judge Finch violated his Constitutional rights and deprived him of all the elements of a fair trial. When the private citizen persisted and again asked to speak, Delegate Watts only allowed her 30 seconds to read the statement, interrupted her several times and did not let her finish.

We are very disappointed the local Chesterfield delegation completely ignored Judge Hauler’s serious problems on and off the bench and decided in favor of politics as usual and endorsed Judge Hauler. This is an abject dereliction of duty and a serious breach of the public trust. We hope that when additional information about Judge Hauler’s record becomes available this week, that the Chesterfield delegation will re-examine their position and vote responsibly in the full committee vote.

We believe a strong and independent judiciary is indispensible to the rule of law. We are governed by the principle that all should be treated fairly in the courtroom. We adhere to the great philosopher Plato’s dictum that justice is giving every man his due. The absence of justice is the unenlightened darkness of a cave.

We are contacting you today to petition that you not re-reappoint Judge Finch and Judge Hauler to judicial office.
While the Pitchfork Rebellion of 1685 was unsuccessful, we are better organized and have a very powerful weapon: the truth. Ours is a peaceful struggle to ensure that our jurists obey the laws of the Commonwealth, uphold and defend the Constitution and firmly adhere to the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court. And if our judges fail to do so, our elected officials ought to hold them accountable.

The pitchfork in the famous 1930 American painting “American Gothic” represents hard work. We represent hardworking ordinary Virginians from across the state who rely on our judiciary and who, frankly, deserve better than Judge Finch and Judge Hauler.

The pitchfork itself is often used to remove manure from the barns, turn over the soil and uproot weeds from the earth. Today, we call upon you, our elected officials, to clean up the judiciary and weed out bad judges: exercise your legislative mandate by pitching Judge Finch and Judge Hauler.

Source URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/2009/02/update-real-pitchforks-richmond

Pitchfork rebellion against Judge Finch

Published on Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com)

By Examiner Staff Writer

Created Jan 13 2009 - 12:00am

Pitchfork rebellion against Judge Finch

Comments (0)

A lot of Virginians are coming out of the woodwork and demanding that the General Assembly refuse to reappoint Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Gaylord Finch. The complaints are coming close to critical mass.

Virginia and South Carolina are the only two states in which legislators appoint judges. Partisan fighting between the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled state Senate delayed many nominations last session. But Virginia lawmakers also have the power to deny a judge reappointment if he/she fails to live up to expectations.

A bill submitted by former delegate and current state attorney general Robert McDonnell created a panel to review judges’ performance of circuit, general district, and juvenile and domestic relations judges. It went into effect for the first time this year. Legislators are supposed to rate judges by their record on the bench instead of just rubber-stamping them for another term.

And they’re getting an earful from irate defendants who feel their rights were violated by Judge Finch. One man claims Judge Finch refused to enter a final order in his case – for four years !– leaving him in a legal no-man’s-land. Another reportedly told the FBI that Finch routinely hears criminal cases in which the defense attorney is his golfing buddy and a frequent houseguest.

A former Fairfax County resident told members of the Courts of Justice Committee that Finch ridiculed and mocked her when she appeared pro se in his courtroom in an attempt to regain custody of her young daughter. Another man complained that in 2005, Judge Finch systematically denied him his constitutional rights when he was charged with trespassing for attending a school party for his Down’s syndrome son at this ex-wife’s invitation. He claims that Judge Finch refused to rule on his motions to dismiss, wouldn’t let the proceedings be recorded by the court reporter present, or even let the defendant present evidence or rebut witnesses.

Finch is also accused of holding ex parte hearings on a custody and child support case and ordering the wrongful imprisonment of a man on false child abuse charges that were later overturned. And the Fairfax County Coalition of Advocates for Public Schools blasted Judge Finch’s handling of the controversial western boundary redistricting case.

Any one of these complaints should give legislators pause as they reconsider reappointing Judge Finch. Taken together, however, they paint such a disturbing picture of judicial arrogance and disdain for the constitutional rights of citizens as to render him unfit for the bench.

Source URL: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/2009/01/pitchfork-rebellion-against-judge-finch

GayLord Finch Flap..hot potato Judge before VA Supreme Court

Published on Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com)

By Examiner Staff Writer

Created Feb 19 2009 - 12:00am

UPDATE: Finch flap now before VA Supreme Court

Comments (0)

The pitchfork rebellion over the reappointment of Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Gaylord Finch to another eight-year term is not over, despite a thumbs up by the Northern Virginia delegation and an almost certain vote in his favor by the Courts of Justice Committee chaired by Del. Dave Albo, R-Springfield.

Liz Haring, a Leesburg mom who is currently appealing Judge Finch’s ruling in her custody case, filed a petition with the Virginia Supreme Court Wednesday, asking the commonwealth’s highest court to stop legislators from proceeding with Finch’s reappointment process.

In documents filed with the court, Haring points out that state law requires that “the Supreme Court, or its designee, shall transmit a report of the evaluation in the final year of the term of each justice and judge whose term expires during the next session of the General Assembly to the chairmen of the House and Senate Committees for Courts of Justice.”

Haring alleges that Linda Birtley, who heads the Judicial Performance Evaluation office at Virginia Commonwealth University, submitted JPEs for other judges on Aug. 28, 2008 – but curiously not one for Judge Finch. The petition argues that absent Finch’s JPE, which is required by the Virginia Code, Albo and his fellow COJ members have no legal authority to recertify him.

Haring also asks that the evaluation done by the Fairfax Bar Association, which is not required by state law, be made a matter of public record since it was discussed during Finch’s Jan. 10 judicial interview – and none of the legislators present made a proper motion to hold a closed meeting as required by Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act.

Finally, Haring argues that Albo had no constitutional authority to accept a letter submitted to the Supreme Court by Finch himself – which states that he intends to retire at the end of 2009 – as a condition of the judge’s recertification. There is no provision in the Virginia Constitution to appoint a judge for less than eight years or make his/her reappointment conditional on a promise to retire, Haring claims, so there is no way to enforce Finch’s promised retirement if he gets back on the bench.

The petition asks for relief in the form of a complete JPE to be submitted to the members of Courts of Justice and another public interview of Finch - with more public testimony allowed. It’s hard to see how the Virginia Supreme Court can say no to what amounts to a citizen’s insistence that the court follow its own procedures.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Janine Saxe - White Collar Child Abuser

Dirty old Woman Janine Saxe - White Collar Child Abuser

Between 2002 and 2004 Janine Saxe was appointed as a Guardian ad Litem of two little children caught in a custody cross fire. Rather than bringing to the attention of the courts the corrupt actions of her fellow buddy lawyer Robert Machen - Instead Janine Saxe created an environment where Robert Machen could abuse the children. She even went as far as to recommend to her buddy Judge Gaylord Finch to change custody of the children to the mother so that the mother's attorney could get a psychologist to manipulate them. - One Sick woman who became a Judge because - She persuaded her Bar buddies to elect her as a Judge. A sad time for Virginia's children.

Audio of Judge Finch's testimony before Joint Courts of Justice Committee

Judge Finch Busted: Lying in 2nd Judicial Interview

Audio of Judge Finch's 2nd Judicial Interview 1/10/09

Part I: Judge Finch's 1st Judicial Interview 12/11/08

Audio of Elizabeth Haring Testimony Against Judge Finch

Judicial hot potato: Is Judge Finch fried?

By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
February 2, 2009

A rare pitchfork rebellion has derailed the reappointment of longtime Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Gaylord Finch, one of just two judges among 60 incumbents who were not reappointed to new terms by the Virginia General Assembly.
Finch supporters say that complaints lodged against him are just sour grapes by bitter people who lost in court. Of course, the corollary is that beneficiaries of a rigged process seldom complain.
It takes a pretty powerful sense of grievance to drive down to Richmond and face public ostracism for criticizing a veteran judge. The inherent difficulties tend to weed out most of the frivolous accusations.
And the accusations made by litigants who stepped up to condemn the former Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court judge at two recent public hearings were anything but frivolous.
They told members of the Courts of Justice Committee that Judge Finch did not follow basic legal procedures or consider their cases with due diligence, violated their constitutional rights on occasion and even failed to obey state statutes.
Taken as a whole, the accusations go far beyond individual angst over adverse rulings and speak directly to arrogant and injudicious behavior on the bench.
Elected legislators appoint judges in Virginia and can block reappointment of those who don’t measure up. However, this legislative check on the judiciary is seldom exercised. Most part-time legislators are full-time attorneys who have little incentive to anger judges they may someday have to appear before.
For a veteran judge like Finch, the General Assembly holds hearings – described by one observer as a “five-minute lovefest” - before certifying the incumbent as qualified. After a simultaneous majority vote in both houses, the judge is approved for another term. But the Northern Virginia delegation held back Judge Finch’s certification after hearing from angry citizens on December 11 and January 10:
* Judge Finch was recorded telling committee members that he was assigned to Pascale v. Fairfax County School Board - a controversial school redistricting case – just “ten minutes” before trial although court records show that he was assigned the landmark case on June 12, 2008 – a full three weeks earlier.
Angry parents claim that Judge Finch “rubber-stamped the decision of the School Board...without providing any reasoning or analysis for his decision” – as required by state law.
* An Arlington man says Judge Finch denied him due process by not allowing him to present evidence to the jury during his trial on trespassing charges, which were later dropped on appeal, for attending a 2005 party at his disabled son’s Fairfax County school. All of the defendant’s motions were mysteriously missing from the official record of action, even though they appear in a list sent to the appellate court.
* A Herndon man says Judge Finch ordered him to hand over more than $60,000 to a former Fairfax Bar Association president acting as a guardian-ad-litem and refused to issue a final ruling in his case for more than three years, instead of the required 21 days, forcing him to pay more than $200,000 in legal fees. After complaining to the chief judge, his case was finally settled on January 8.
* Court records also show that in 2007, Judge Finch took a six-year-old girl away from her single working mother and four siblings and awarded custody to the first grader’s father - "contingent" on his live-in girlfriend, who had previous drug and DUI convictions, passing random drug testing.
When another former litigant requested a copy of Finch’s Judicial Performance Evaluation, the state’s Division of Legislative Services told her via email: “Judge Finch is not one of the judges for whom the legislature received a JPE this year.” So on what basis are committee members considering his reappointment?
Citizens deserve to know before they’re subjected to Judge Finch’s questionable judgment for another eight years.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Washington Examiner’s local opinion editor. She can be reached by email at: bhollingsworth@dcexaminer.com.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Fairfax Judge Gaylord Finch under fire

http://fairfaxcps.blogspot.com/2010/11/fairfax-judge-gaylord-finch-under-fire.html

Pitchfork rebellion against Judge Finch

By: Examiner Staff Writer 01/13/09 12:00 AM
Examiner Staff Writer

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion/2009/01/pitchfork-rebellion-against-judge-finch#ixzz19qFOVvwO

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyxScnwvx7c Crooked Delegate David Albo cuts a deal for Judge Finch....read between the lines....for favors in court for his law firm.

Janine Saxe : White Collar Child Abuser Judge of Fairfax JDR Court

Janine Saxe Racket in Fairfax VA

Judicial hot potato: Is Judge Finch fried?

By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
February 2, 2009

A rare pitchfork rebellion has derailed the reappointment of longtime Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Gaylord Finch, one of just two judges among 60 incumbents who were not reappointed to new terms by the Virginia General Assembly.

Finch supporters say that complaints lodged against him are just sour grapes by bitter people who lost in court. Of course, the corollary is that beneficiaries of a rigged process seldom complain.

It takes a pretty powerful sense of grievance to drive down to Richmond and face public ostracism for criticizing a veteran judge. The inherent difficulties tend to weed out most of the frivolous accusations.

And the accusations made by litigants who stepped up to condemn the former Domestic and Juvenile Relations Court judge at two recent public hearings were anything but frivolous.

They told members of the Courts of Justice Committee that Judge Finch did not follow basic legal procedures or consider their cases with due diligence, violated their constitutional rights on occasion and even failed to obey state statutes.

Taken as a whole, the accusations go far beyond individual angst over adverse rulings and speak directly to arrogant and injudicious behavior on the bench.

Elected legislators appoint judges in Virginia and can block reappointment of those who don’t measure up. However, this legislative check on the judiciary is seldom exercised. Most part-time legislators are full-time attorneys who have little incentive to anger judges they may someday have to appear before.

For a veteran judge like Finch, the General Assembly holds hearings – described by one observer as a “five-minute lovefest” - before certifying the incumbent as qualified. After a simultaneous majority vote in both houses, the judge is approved for another term. But the Northern Virginia delegation held back Judge Finch’s certification after hearing from angry citizens on December
11 and January 10:

* Judge Finch was recorded telling committee members that he was assigned to Pascale v. Fairfax County School Board - a controversial school redistricting case – just “ten minutes” before trial although court records show that he was assigned the landmark case on June 12, 2008 – a full three weeks earlier.
Angry parents claim that Judge Finch “rubber-stamped the decision of the School Board...without providing any reasoning or analysis for his decision” – as required by state law.

* An Arlington man says Judge Finch denied him due process by not allowing him to present evidence to the jury during his trial on trespassing charges, which were later dropped on appeal, for attending a 2005 party at his disabled son’s Fairfax County school. All of the defendant’s motions were mysteriously missing from the official record of action, even though they appear in a list sent to the appellate court.

* A Herndon man says Judge Finch ordered him to hand over more than $60,000 to a former Fairfax Bar Association president acting as a guardian-ad-litem and refused to issue a final ruling in his case for more than three years, instead of the required 21 days, forcing him to pay more than $200,000 in legal fees. After complaining to the chief judge, his case was finally settled on January 8.

* Court records also show that in 2007, Judge Finch took a six-year-old girl away from her single working mother and four siblings and awarded custody to the first grader’s father - "contingent" on his live-in girlfriend, who had previous drug and DUI convictions, passing random drug testing.
When another former litigant requested a copy of Finch’s Judicial Performance Evaluation, the state’s Division of Legislative Services told her via email: “Judge Finch is not one of the judges for whom the legislature received a JPE this year.” So on what basis are committee members considering his reappointment?

Citizens deserve to know before they’re subjected to Judge Finch’s questionable judgment for another eight years.

Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Washington Examiner’s local opinion editor. She can be reached by email at: bhollingsworth@dcexaminer.com.

STOP White Collar Child and Family Abuse in Fairfax County Virginia!!!!!.
Please join us in standing up against ORGANIZED White Collar CHILD ABUSE of our children by attorney Robert Machen and attorney Janine Saxe.

Janine Saxe - White Collar Child Abuser

Janine M. Saxe Law Offices of Janine M. Saxe
4118 Leonard Drive, 2nd Floor
Fairfax, VA 22030
e-mail: janinesaxe@janinesaxeattorney.com (703) 691-3201 (phone) (703) 691-1190 (fax) VSB: 23407

|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Robert B. Machen 4326 K Evergreen Lane Annandale, VA 22003-3261 (703) 273-3511 (phone) (703) 273-3513 (fax) VSB:20287

Related Links

To: The Honorable Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. The Honorable Governor Mark Warner. The Honorable Judges of Fairfax County, Virginia. The Honorable Senators, Congressmen, Legislators, Children's rights organizations. Fairfax County Supervisors, Church Groups, Family rights activists, Residents of Fairfax County and Virginia.

We need your help and support.

Two innocent little children (Sveta "5 Years" and Lisa "3 years") have been the tiniest victims of these two attorneys manipulations the last two and a half years.

Friends of Little Sveta and Lisa would like to bring awareness and help end this abuse by Mr. Robert B. Machen and Ms. Janine M. Saxe ( guardian ad litem for the children).

Ms. Janine Saxe and Mr. Robert Machen are wasting Tens of Thousands of tax payer dollars undermining fit parents, misleading and abusing our court system, setting one parent against the other, false reporting to courts, state and federal agencies, separating and abusing the Jagannathan family while profiting unethically from their actions.

This is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated here in the U.S or anywhere else in the world. Little Sveta and Lisa have been subjected to suffering and their young minds abused and manipulated by the destructive actions of Ms. Janine Saxe and Mr. Robert Machen.

We demand Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen be removed from the lives of little Sveta and Lisa.

We demand Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen be held accountable, brought to justice, and punished. We demand an independent investigation.

We request wide dissemination of this material. Thank you for signing this petition.

Whereas, Ms. Janine M. Saxe and Mr. Robert B. Machen's malicious acts are an act of emotional and psychological terrorism against the little children, against parents and against a family;
Whereas, for Children and Parents there can be nothing in life experience more devastating than the abrupt, brutal, and unwarranted enforced separation due to the abusive and manipulative tactics of Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen;
Whereas, The parent-child bond is the strongest instinct, superseding all else and is protected by our constitutional rights;
Whereas, Ms. Saxe was made aware of Attorney Robert Machens' past record of malpractice including, falsifying documents and evidence;
Whereas, The Virginia State Bar had disciplined Mr. Machen, reprimanding him twice and suspending his license for falsifying documents. He has had district committee sanctions leveled against him.
Three Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Honorable Judge Thomas D. Thorne, Judge Dickson L. Foster, Judge Robert K. Woltz had found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Machen engaged in conduct for personal advantage, involving deceit that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law and found him guilty under DR1-102(A)(4) of code of professional responsibility.
The Organization - Citizen for Legal Reform reports Mr. Machen has engaged in conduct which tends to undermine the administration of justice and to bring legal businesses into disrepute;
Whereas, Ms. Saxe was made aware of Rule 3.4 of the Virginia State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.
A Lawyer shall not Falsify Evidence. Counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely;
Whereas, Ms. Janine Saxe failed to abide by the Virginia State Bar code when she violated Rule 8.4 Rules of Professional conduct (A Lawyer's obligation to report misconduct to disciplinary authorities is absolute, and is stronger than the policy against disclosing confidential material surrendered during discovery. Therefore a Lawyer who suspects unethical conduct by another lawyer can include information uncovered during this litigation in an unsealed counterclaim, despite the protective order protecting the material);
Whereas, Attorney Mr. Machen repeatedly filed false papers and made false statements in court that were not supported by evidence, and Ms. Saxe as an attorney and officer of the court is duty bound by law to report such falsifications;
Whereas, white collar child and family abuse by Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen with no regard or thought to the emotional impact on two little Children (Sveta and Lisa) who have suffered endlessly by the actions of these two attorneys is a violation of the rights or parents guaranteed by the U.S Constitution and the Commonwealth of Virginia;
Whereas, Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen have abused and undermined the children's interests, the justice system at the expense of the taxpayers, and the Jagannathan's family assets for over two years with deceit and malpractice, while profiting from these abuses by asking for attorney fees and other expenses;
Whereas, to have a parent child bond abruptly severed by the malicious efforts of Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen giving no consideration to the fear, anxiety, and trauma their actions cause to two little children, is child abuse, a crime against humanity and should not be tolerated in the state of Virginia;
Whereas, Ms. Janine Saxe interests in being a guardian, of the children while advocating denial of visitation to the fit, educated and caring father of Sveta and Lisa;
Whereas, small children believe their parents to be all-powerful, like super heroes. They believe that their parents possess an all-powerful ability to shelter and protect them from any threat;
Whereas, Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen coercion of a parent into submission under a false pretense and engineering the abduction of their children from all that is safe and familiar to them, a fundamental belief system within the child is broken forever, along with the child's ability to feel safe and secure in their world;
Whereas, Robert Machen attempts to file numerous injective relief, Protective orders in order to separate the parents and the children claiming a new set of abuse allegation each time;
Whereas, spurious child abuse charges maliciously filed with Child Protective Services (CPS) were dismissed as baseless by the CPS, yet Mr. Machen goes to court with a motion the very next week on child abuse and neglect charges;
Whereas, a fax document discovered as evidence of Robert Machens' devious actions in which he conspires to bring criminal false allegation to the FBI, Department of Justice, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to revoke the father of the children's green card in an effort to seize control of the children;

We deplore Ms. Janine M. Saxe and Mr. Robert B. Machen's relentless two and a half year effort at undermining the children's interests, promoting separation, bitterness, acrimony and divorce between the parents by playing one side against the other, filing false documents with Federal and State Agencies including the FBI, Department of Justice, Child Protective Services, Police, The former Immigration and Naturalization Service.

NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED that the rights of parent and children to have frequent and continuing contact is a fundamental, joint right of the parent and child with a basis in constitutional case law, which has held that the rights to raise, have access to, and care for one's own children are "more precious than property rights," are "essential"; and that the right to be with one's children is a" natural" right with a higher moral claim than any economic right.

BE IT RESOLVED that the U.S Supreme court has stated consistently as that of
parental rights. Ie: In 1923 the Court asserted that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and to "control the education of their own." Meyer v. Nebraska. 262 U.S 390, 399, 401, (1923). On June 5, 2000, the Supreme Court declared that
It cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. Troxel v. Granville ( 530 U.S 2000)

BE IT RESOLVED that Fundamental Constitutional rights are accorded a special status in judicial review. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

BE IT RESOLVED that the actions of Ms. Janine Saxe and Mr. Robert Machen are a infringement of parental rights guaranteed under our constitution. Such acts of deprivation must occur only when there is a compelling state interest served by interfering with these rights and there is no more constitutionally benign way to achieve this compelling state interest.

BE IT RESOLVED that there has never been any evidence presented that, the retention of parental rights by both parents would compromise a compelling state interest.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that We assert and affirm our rights under the constitution to protect and defend our children from the likes of Janine M. Saxe and Robert B. Machen.

Thank you for taking the time to read and sign this petition.

Friends of Sveta and Lisa
Walter Johnson

Email: wjohnsonva@lycos.com

Friday, January 21, 2011

UPDATE: Real pitchforks in Richmond

Pitchfork rebellion against Judge Finch

UPDATE: Finch flap now before VA Supreme Court

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Judge Finch Busted: Lying in 2nd Judicial Interview

Part I: Judge Finch's 1st Judicial Interview 12/11/08

Judicial hot potato: Is Judge Finch fried?

By: Barbara Hollingsworth Local Opinion Editor February 2, 2009

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Judicial hot potato: Is Judge Finch fried?

By: Barbara Hollingsworth Local Opinion Editor February 2, 2009

By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
February 2, 2009

By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
February 2, 2009