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.
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.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pSuAuC3si1UJ:www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/BarbaraHollingsworth/Judicial-hot-potatoe-Is-Judge-Finch-fried38795667.html+Is+Judge+Finch+Fried&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=gmail#ixzz19qEZsjMS
--------------------------
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.
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 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;
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
No comments:
Post a Comment