Horrendous Murder-Suicide: Another Family Falls Victim to the Pennsylvania Courts

Share

BrokenScalesUpdate April 8, 2015:  It has since been confirmed that this was a murder suicide, and that Mr. Peppelman turned the chainsaw on himself, after killing his ex-wife.  Funeral services were held last week, at the Bryn Athyn Cathedral.

 The Peppelman’s have three children, all under the age of 14.  One of the younger children found his parents and called 911. It is confirmed that this was a highly contentious domestic relations issue, whereby the police had been called to the residence multiple times.  It is odd that the wife was at the house, considering she had moved out with the three children.  The children may have been coming home from school to the residence and were being picked up by the mother.

As a side note, the husband was represented by Lynn Gold-Bikin, a very high priced lawyer, whose office is located near the Montgomery County Court.  Ms. Gold-Bikin has been known to ask for retainers up to $250,000.  In speaking with a news reporter from Philly News, Jason Nark,  it was said that the wife’s  lawyer claimed the divorce was over.  However, he should request the invoices of this attorney- Cheryl Young  of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller LLC – and Ms. Gold-Bikin to see if continual services were being billed for – over custody or other monetary issues. Lynn Gold-Bikin is also representing Attorney General Kathleen Kane in her divorce.

March 31, 2015:  Just three months ago, this past December, Bradley Stone killed his wife and six members of her family in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.   The news media claimed that Stone, who was an Iraq veteran, suffered from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) usually attributed to combat. That story is here:   Montgomery County Shooting Spree Suspect Bradley Stone Found Dead

What they chose to ignore was that Stone was trapped in the Montgomery County family court system for approximately 10 years. That can also cause PTSD, known as Legal Abuse Syndrome. After the history of the family was revealed, Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Furman, made a comment regarding Stone – that “maybe he did not get his way in the custody battle he was involved in, but that’s no excuse. ”

Where is the excuse of the judges in Montgomery County who presided over another family court case,  that today resulted in another murder-suicide?  Is anyone seeing a pattern here?   Christopher Peppelman and his wife, Nicole, had been in a divorce battle for 5 years. In the quiet town of Lower Moreland,  the wife was found hacked to death by a chainsaw in their home, and the husband was also found dead, although the cause of death has not been released.   They were found by one of their children. As a resident of that small town, rumor has it,  that what precipitated the horrendous scene – involved the judges of Montgomery County family courts.

Judge Bertin, who is the same judge that Bradley Stone had, presided over this  divorce for a period of time. Judge Danielle also conducted hearings- this judge has had multiple complaints about her over the years. I have witnessed the behavior of both these judges first hand.  Judge Gail Weilheimer is new to the bench, and I have personal experience with her. Her loyalties clearly lie  with the people that funded her election campaign – the lawyers of the Montgomery County Bar Association.  As do most all of the judges in this county.  She issued the last order in this case.

For too long, the attorney hourly fee system, judicial immunity and judicial campaign contributions -invariably from attorneys that come before these judges- has been a prescription for racketeering. What the news media continually fails to address is that the court system is set up to provide profit, not justice. In family court, they  put a price on the child’s head.  Whoever gets the most custody time, even if its another 5%, has to pay the other party. You have to wonder why a judge would give 5% more time to one parent than another.   Just what is the going rate  for 5% custody of a child?

The answer is  that it creates controversy between the parties, and increases the hourly billing for attorneys. With no oversight to our self-regulating attorneys, who also serve as judges, this has gone on unchecked for decades. The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board received over 750 complaints just this year – and addressed only five of them. They operate in secrecy and do not reveal complaints however, anyone who has been involved in the family courts will probably tell you that they submitted complaints to the Board, all dismissed. This is the same Board that ignored approximately 40 complaints over a period of seven years, regarding the two judges who were eventually convicted in the Kids for Cash Scandal, albeit not on charges for their actions on the bench. They were shielded by immunity laws, that the bar association slipped into the Constitution, without the consent of the people, in 1995.

Until the public demands change, by taking to the streets, it will continue. Our government never seems to understand anything else. The problem is that once you are trapped in the court system, you become  financially and emotionally disabled.

 There are those of us that are staying strong.   On May 4, 2015, there will be a rally for court reform in Harrisburg, PA.    If you live in the area or want to attend, and do not want your children to be left with this disasterous faux legal system, please create a login here and join us.

Thank you.

PA Supreme Court Decision Should Be the Basis to Challenge Judicial Immunity and Self-Recusal

Share

Pennsylvania is the state to watch, with its ongoing  major challenges  to  jurisdiction in our courts,  through what apparently started as a political agenda, against  the State Attorney General Kathleen Kane.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the first  and oldest in the country- the birthplace of democracy, with the most precedent set.   It is ironic that it is also the venue of one of the worst cases of judicial corruption in the country- The Kids for Cash Scandal;  and now that same Judicial Branch is  imposing its dubious power to try to  exceed their jurisdiction, and retain control of the government.

The major cause  of the decline of our democracy,   has its roots in the claims of “judicial independence” and the self-regulated judiciary.  There is just no one to go to when the law is being broken by judges- who use “discretionary” rule to deny  due process in violation of  civil rights. The concurring opinions are highly  hypocritical-  in the rulings issued today regarding  Attorney General  Kane.  In the ruling which precipitated this appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it was held by  lower court  Judge Carpenter, of Montgomery County,  that the Attorney General cannot investigate herself.  However,   judges get to decide every day if they should recuse themselves, and they control their own disciplinary process, and that of lawyers.

Below are the concurring and dissenting opinions from today – on the Attorney General’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the courts – who appointed a special prosecutor to investigate her. Prosecution is the jurisdiction of her office – not the courts. According to the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary does not have the power to appoint a prosecutor.  Below are the links to the rulings.

Hopefully, Attorney General Kane will challenge the constitutionality of this in the Federal courts, and begin to address the mass of complaints their office receives regarding lack of judicial integrity.  The only one that got it right, is the only woman on the bench – Madame Justice Todd- who wrote the dissenting opinion:

In Re: 35th Statewide Inv Grand Jury / of: AG (opinion announcing the judgment of the court)
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2015/197-mm-2014-1.html

Date: March 31, 2015
Docket Number: 197 MM 2014

In Re: 35th Statewide Inv Grand Jury / of: AG (concurring)
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2015/197-mm-2014-2.html

Date: March 31, 2015
Docket Number: 197 MM 2014

In Re: 35th Statewide Inv Grand Jury / of: AG (dissenting)
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2015/197-mm-2014-3.html

Date: March 31, 2015
Docket Number: 197 MM 2014

 

The Groping Judge – Federal Case Survives Against the U.S.

Share

punch

Page printed from: The Legal Intelligencer

Suit Survives Against US Over Judge Accused of GropingMax Mitchell, The Legal Intelligencer

March 27, 2015

A federal judge has given a woman who was allegedly groped by an administrative law judge a second chance at filing a civil suit against the United States for failing to protect against the alleged assaults.

U.S. District Judge Robert D. Mariani of the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Thursday dismissed plaintiff Florence Gaffney’s suit for failure to state a claim against the government, but ultimately granted her leave to file an amended complaint. The ruling in Gaffney v. United States of America also denied the government’s attempts to toss the case on sovereign immunity grounds.

The crux of Gaffney’s case against the government is that government employees failed to protect her from the conduct of Social Security Administrative Law Judge Sridhar Boini, who allegedly fondled her breasts, made sexual gestures using his tongue and mouth, and routinely drank alcohol during work hours.

The government had argued that, following precedent regarding sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act, it could only be held liable for failure to protect against Boini if it had learned of the judge’s conduct outside working hours.

However, Mariani held that the government’s argument stemmed from a “tortured reading” of the case law.

“It would serve no rational purpose to hold that the duty only attaches if the government foresaw danger based on actions that the individual took while ‘off the clock,’ or—even more perversely—that the government may ignore foreseeable dangers just because they happened to arise during an employee’s work time,” Mariani said.

Patrick J. Doyle Jr. of the Anzalone Law Offices, who represented Gaffney, said that he was pleased that the defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied.

“We will be filing an amended complaint to comply with the judge’s instruction,” Doyle said.

Assistant U.S. attorney J. Justin Blewitt Jr. did not immediately return a call for comment.

A fuller version of this article will be posted later when the article is completed.

Copyright 2015. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

The Untouchables – The Judiciary in America

Share

New_Civil_Rights_Movement

The Judicial Branch Has Cut Itself Off From the Public and the Government

“Judicial Branch” is in reference to all lawyers, including those that function as judges.  The Judicial Branch in this country is completely unaccountable to the people. This is particularly dangerous because they have the ultimate power to control the legislature.  They are currently operating in the same manner, as every country that has ended up in volatile revolutionary status.

Thousands of people, if not tens of thousands, are being denied due process.  These are in both civil and criminal cases.  No matter who you are, you are at risk. This is directly a result of the American Bar Association, to which all of the members of the Judiciary belong, having formed a shadow government.  They have been incrementally gaining jurisdiction since the 1970’s, and are now running the country,  overpowering  the the other two branches.

People are being incarcerated unfairly, having their homes foreclosed and just plain having their assets extorted through the courts.  And there is just no one to go to-it is a dead end at every turn.  Lawyers are self-governing, and even in the “code of conduct” it states that they operate outside the government. There is currently no restitution mechanism for damages causes by a member of the Judicial Branch.  They gave themselves absolute immunity in the 1970s, and further empowered themselves in 1995, by changing the United States Constitution under Section 1983, which is the law used  to file a civil rights law suit, for violations of due process and discrimination.

The majority of the public is blind to this, and will not see it until it is too late.  You cannot call your government to complain.  You will  reach  a digital voicemail, asking you to push a multitude of buttons, only to reach a low-level government employee, who will direct you to another low level employee.  Many of us, who are directly involved with the courts, have gone so far as to contact their Attorney Generals, the FBI and Governors’ offices, only to be told they have no “jurisdiction” over the Judicial Branch.

Going before a judge, even when represented by a lawyer, who is a also member of the bar, is a conflict of interest. The only objective they both have is to complicate and prolong the case, to bill for as many hours as possible. Once you become entangled in the court system, you will be sent trivial items via U.S. Mail and confirmations of emails received, but nothing will ever get resolved, UNLESS you have the resources to pay huge fees to members of the bar association.  Even if you win, you lose.  And you may wind up incarcerated, even if you are innocent, often for prosecutorial misconduct that is rampant. You may wait years or decades, to be freed, and they go unpunished.

If you try to send a letter to a judge, regarding the flaws in the system, it will be refused and returned to you.  If you are not represented by a lawyer, you cannot be heard by the Supreme Court.  They now only hear cases where parties are represented by attorneys, in violation of the U.S. Constitution of 1776. Many that cannot afford lawyers, have tried to gain access to appeals courts, and all have been rejected.

The New Civil Rights Movement

In 2013, the American Bar Association put out a call to action, stating that there were not enough lawyers in the Legislature, and is building a war chest to gain even more power.   In fact, the original Constitution prohibits anyone from holding two offices, and as “officers of the court,” attorneys are not even legally allowed to serve in government offices.

These lawyers are the sole contributors to the judicial election campaigns of every judge.  It is clearly documented online.  Every judge that serves on a case, has some monetary connection to that lawyer, whether it be through a direct campaign, or through a Political Action Committee (PAC) to hide their names.  The judges know this.

Those of us with our eyes wide open, spend every spare minute working to change this.  We need to restore the democracy. But our biggest obstacle is the apathy of the public, who only contact us once it is too late. If you are not one of the sleeping majority or would like to be awakened, please create a login at (your privacy is respected) at Pennsylvania Court Watch so we can keep you updated on the legislation and events. We encourage other groups to join us.

Thank you.

 

Propaganda From The Legal Intelligencer on Family Court

Share

THIS IS FROM AN ARTICLE POSTED IN THE LEGAL INTELLIGENCER

Family Law and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
James R. Nixon Jr. 03/24/2015

In a perfect world, divorce, custody and support proceedings would wrap up at the trial court level, and the parties involved could move on to the next chapter of their lives. As all family law practitioners are too well aware, though, many cases can drag on for quite some time, due to unique case complexities, court scheduling backlogs and contentious situations among parties. Delays in the process are not only difficult for the parties involved (especially children), but can also end up being quite costly for the litigants.

These delays occur despite the fact that Pennsylvania’s trial courts are handling more cases than ever before, and at a faster pace than seen in decades past. However, when a case is taken to the appellate level, it can delay the final outcome for as much as a year or more. Accordingly, it is worth taking into account how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the state’s highest court, is adjudicating family law cases.

The state Supreme Court, the oldest in our nation (almost 100 years older than the U.S. Supreme Court), with the ability to accept appeals from both the Superior and Commonwealth courts, has the final say on any case it chooses to hear. Unlike the Superior Court, for example, which must accept appeals, the Supreme Court can choose whether to grant allowance of appeal. As a result, when the Supreme Court does grant allowance of appeal, the cases it chooses are closely watched by attorneys to determine if there is a trend toward a certain issue that could greatly impact their clients.

With the exception of agency cases on appeal from the Commonwealth Court, the Supreme Court issued just one family law opinion in 2014. In December 2014, Justice Max Baer authored the opinion in In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Superior Court erred in reversing a trial court’s termination of a father’s parental rights as a result of an agency’s failure to provide reasonable efforts to enable the father to unify with his child while the father was incarcerated. The court said nothing in the language of the Juvenile Act prohibited the granting of a petition to terminate parental rights as a consequence of an agency’s failure to provide reasonable efforts to a parent to unify with a child when the parent was incarcerated, among other factors. The father in question had been incarcerated for most of the child’s life, was to remain incarcerated for years, and was unable to perform his duties as a parent. The child had bonded with her foster family, who wanted to adopt her.

Again, with the exception of agency cases on appeal from the Commonwealth Court, the Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal in family law cases only once in 2014, and once more so far in 2015. In In the Interest of L.Z., 96 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2014), the court decided to hear the issues of “whether the Superior Court, in holding that a parent may only be designated a perpetrator of abuse if the child is ‘in the parent’s care at the time of the injury,’ disregarded the Child Protective Services Law” and “whether the Superior Court erred … in vacating the trial court’s finding of abuse against mother.”

In A.S. v. I.S., 2015 Pa. LEXIS 215, the court decided to hear the issues of “whether … a former stepparent who has … established equal parental rights as the children’s natural parent—and, per a court order, equally shares … custody with the natural parent—should be relieved of the duty to contribute to the children’s support” and “if this court finds that [a] duty of support [exists], whether the amount of support … is calculated by … [the] child support guidelines.”

While the Supreme Court has granted appellate review sparsely, based on the two cases above, it is clear that the court is monitoring requests for appeal in family law cases carefully, and granting them on novel and important issues that have a broad impact on Pennsylvania.

This year, Pennsylvanians are in the process of electing three justices to the Supreme Court, something that has not occurred in recent history. Many legal commentators will be interested to see if having new members on the court will change the amount of family law cases that are heard, especially considering that several of the candidates for the court have significant family law experience.

Justice Correale F. Stevens, former president judge of the Superior Court, is currently serving as an interim justice and is also running for a full term. When asked about family law issues at the Supreme Court level, he said, “As to family law matters, the court grants allowance of appeal based on a case-by-case review. Whether we have five justices, as we do now, or seven justices next year, this will not impact whether or not we take a particular case. The process of case selection focuses on what impacts Pennsylvanians on a statewide level.”

Superior Court Judge Anne E. Lazarus, a former judge of the Orphans’ Division of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and a Supreme Court candidate, said, “With three new justices on the court, it is likely that there may be a fresh look about which cases are granted allocatur and under what circumstances allocatur is granted.”

Another candidate, Superior Court Judge David N. Wecht, a former administrative judge of the Family Division of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, said, “This is an important topic. The Supreme Court should be granting allowance of appeal more often, as a general matter. The court should be accepting and deciding more cases, and should be doing so faster. This includes family law issues, which affect litigants so directly, intimately and emotionally.”

It will be interesting to see if and how the Supreme Court changes its stance on hearing family law cases, if it does so at all, once the new justices are installed in January 2016. Until then, Pennsylvania can still count on its highest court to handle family law cases of high import.

James R. Nixon Jr. is an associate in Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby’s family law group and concentrates his practice on family law matters, including divorce, custody and adoption.

Bar Association Claims of Non Profit Doubtful

Share

THE PRO BONO MYTH

The biggest problem litigants often have is Pro Se (representing oneself) discrimination.  We often hear that people lose their homes and life savings from lawsuits.  The illusion here is that one party in a lawsuit loses, and has to pay the other party.   The fact is that people are financially devastated from attorney’s fees- not from the opposing parties.  Without a lawyer, no matter how skilled you are at writing and research, you will be victimized by unavoidable bias and collusion.  This is inevitable in a system that allows judges to serve in courts where they have already worked for decades.

We vote judges into office at the Common Pleas level without really knowing how they will perform.  This is the level where your assets are most vulnerable and accessible  to  the courthouse opportunists.  After being guaranteed a job for ten years, with “sovereign immunity” protecting them against liability for misconduct, judges more often than not, become at best arrogant, and at worst corrupt. Attorneys who come before them every day in Court are their friends and colleagues. If you cannot afford to hire one of these attorneys, you are out of luck.   No better illustration of this was the “Kids for Cash” scandal  at the Common Pleas level of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRO BONO

At least not if you have ever paid taxes.  After trying to find a pro bono (volunteer) lawyer, and contacting numerous “legal aid” societies, I found that help did not really exist- at least not if you had any assets to lose.  Most of these “nonprofit” services provide about one hour per month of services for each client. I tried numerous organizations such as the Pennsylvania Bar, the Montgomery County Bar and the Legal Aid society. I was told that basically I needed a real lawyer, and therefore did not qualify for any free or pro bono services. Nor did I qualify for reduced fees. I was given no reason- no forms to fill out for eligibility—nothing.

These organizations only help you after you have nothing left to lose.  Most only do such innocuous filings such as uncontested divorces, and filing for government entitlements for the indigent and welfare recipients. I started to research the insanity of this and was more than appalled by what I found and also just how our elected officials are failing at addressing these issues. 

 

Look Up Salaries and Revenue of Your Favorite Bar Association or Other Non Profit Here:

 

 

ATTORNEY NON-PROFITS

A prime example is a “nonprofit” organization called the “National Center for State Courts.”   They reported in 2009 on their IRS Form 990 having received $11,184,843 - the majority of which was grants from taxpayer dollars.   Not one citizen was helped by their organization- well at least not in this country. This organization paid $5,433,125 for “justice reform” in Europe (including Iceland and Greenland).  They spent $2,646,885 in the Middle East and Africa, along with millions more sent to a total of seven countries outside the U.S totally $9,804,592.  

They also list nine “independent contractors” of “justice reform” who received more than $100,000 each- with some very notable expenditures:  over $241,000 was paid to some fellow named Phillippe Lamarche in Beirut; $608,180 to another “nonprofit” Amid east in Washington, DC and $226,482 for “contract services” to the Hay Group in Jakarta India.  The Form 990 revealed this organization had over $32 million in revenue- mostly from federal, state and other government contracts.  They then shelled out $15 million dollars in salaries and other compensations for the attorneys that work for them.

Perhaps the most well known attorney nonprofit is the American Bar Association. They are the blanket organization for all the Bar Associations across America.  The Pennsylvania Bar Association  had $8 Million in revenue in 2011, and are tax exempt.  I was told to call them to find a lawyer.  I found lots of lawyers there at $200 to $500 an  hour.  Or they will allow you to put their name on your house.

How many Americans go without legal representation each year?  It would be difficult to estimate, because many families just give up. They lose their homes, they lose tuition saved to put their children through college, and they lose their retirement funds. Many people will be affected by a loss due to the legal system- a mechanical failure perpetuated by conflicts of interest of your elected officials- most of whom are attorneys. 

Judicial Merit Selection Will Not Work

Share
The merit selection is definitely NOT the answer to ending judicial corruption and ensuring impartial tribunals.  Merit selection will not stop backroom deals and other favors to get on the bench. The only thing that will rescue the justice system in Pennsylvania, from the clutches of the organized crime family that controls it today- is intense oversight in every county.
Ombudsman or civilian advocates, paralegals or other trained individuals who have NO AFFILIATION with the local bar associations,  must be given the power to carry out the control over the rogue judges that are wreaking havoc on innocent victims- especially in the realm of the family court system.  Racketeering by judges and attorneys, in places like the Montgomery County, Delaware County and Allegheny Courts of Common Pleas, supported by their brethren in the Appellate level- has run rampant and unchecked for years.  Having their buddies in the General Assembly put them in office will only make political favors even more lucrative.
Mechanisms that will alleviate the massive fraud and theft now being perpetrated  at the county level- would be limiting all cases to 12 to 18  months. Family court is where the most abuse takes place. Any case that gets protracted longer than that would trigger an automatic review by the oversight committee- who should be given the power to impose monetary fines both on the judges and the lawyers for extorting funds from vulnerable litigants. These fines  should go to the litigants who have had  assets extorted from them by these common methods now being used by lawfirms, and facilitated by the judges that they put on the bench.  Here are some more no brainers: Continue reading Judicial Merit Selection Will Not Work

Judge Claims Attorney Generals Cannot Investigate Themselves – But Judges Can?

Share

crownblackThere is an excerpt  below from an article in the Nation’s oldest legal publication, the Legal Intelligencer, that is now owned by Apax Partners LLP, a UK-based private equity and venture capital firm, headquartered in London, England. It appears we are still a colony run by the monarchy.  This is also probably why our court venues are still modeled by the archaic system in England, from which we supposedly separated in 1776.  Our system still includes “sovereign immunity” in the form of “judicial immunity” taken from the concept that “the king can do no wrong.” So always consider your sources. That said please read on.

Pennsylvania Judge William R. Carpenter states that he appointed a special prosecutor to investigate allegations against the State Attorney General, because “Clearly, Attorney General Kane could not investigate herself,” he said.

 This is evidence of the hypocrisy with which our judiciary has been operating for far too long. Judges targeted with motions for their recusals, demanded by litigants, do in fact, investigate themselves.  They do not have to refer to any type of democractic process to determine if their actions violate their Judicial Canons or civil rights violations under the U.S.  or PA State Constitutions. We have a self-recusal system, that was put in place by the judges themselves, and not by legislature or a public referendum. The only alternative is to complain to the Judicial Conduct Board – that is also made up of judges and lawyers.

The Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch and is in charge of criminal investigations.  Therefore, Judge Carpenter has exceeded his jurisdiction in assigning a prosecutor to investigate Attorney General Kane, whose job it is to appoint prosecutors. These conflicts have been going on for decades in Pennsylvania, since the amendment to the State Constitution with Article V Section 10, whereby the courts interpreted that “administrative” self-regulation, gave them the power to block all oversight by the legislature and the public. They used this power to exempt themselves from the Open Meeting Laws in 1978.

Hopefully, the harrassment of AG Kane, will start a public dialog to address these issues, which have been denying due process, resulting in false imprisonment and extortion of assets by attorneys in collusion with judges, for decades…

AG Kane’s Case Highlights Justices’ March Arguments                

Lizzy McLellan, The Legal Intelligencer  March 10, 2015

Ethical issues in the public sector are set to take the stage next week as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is scheduled to hear several cases dealing with state officials—including an important one for Attorney General Kathleen Kane—as well as government agencies and funds.  A court of five justices is set to hear arguments March 10 and 11 in Philadelphia.

Kane’s Challenge

In an expedited case that has garnered widespread attention, the justices agreed to hear Kane’s challenge to the appointment of a special prosecutor in an investigation of her office’s alleged involvement in a grand jury leak, in In re 35th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury.

In an opinion filed by Supervising Judge William R. Carpenter, he said he appointed Thomas E. Carluccio as special prosecutor in the case after finding grounds for further investigation into allegations of a grand jury leak originating from Kane’s office. In support, Carpenter cited other cases in which special prosecutors were appointed to investigate grand jury leaks, and said he sought advisement from then-Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille.

“Clearly, Attorney General Kane could not investigate herself,” he said.

Documents unsealed by the Supreme Court show portions of a grand jury presentment recommending that Kane face criminal charges, and an opinion from Carpenter which said the grand jury recommended charges of perjury, false swearing, official oppression and obstruction.

Kane has maintained that she did nothing illegal, and that the possible charges are politically motivated.

Following the grand jury’s recommendations, the case was in the hands of Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman until the Supreme Court agreed to hear Kane’s argument.

RICO Action Filed Against Judicial Immunity in CA

Share

Cole Stuart is a parent, lawyer, legal activist, former partner at a large international law firm, and a tireless family court reformer. Two decades of trial and appellate work in highly technical legal matters in state and federal courts, and numerous engagements with abuse of authority both inside and outside of the courtroom have honed an irrepressible dedication to equal justice and restraint of institutional power. He co-founded California Coalition for Families and Children with other divorced parents in 2009 to provide “litigant-side” legal support and advocacy and domestic dispute industry reform. In 2013 California Coalition filed a racketeering and civil rights lawsuit against family court judges, psychologists, and divorce lawyers in United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on key family court issues of judicial immunity and the legal adequacy of racketeering claims against the divorce industry. California Coalition has developed resources and tools for parents, children, the public, and the ethical lawyers engaging the behemoth divorce industry at a website, WeightierMatter.com.

Family Court Facing Historic Attack in Ninth Circuit-Additional Briefing Filed Today – Weightier Matter