National Council of Juvenile And Family Court Judges Has A Registered Trademark To Guide Fraud

The very first item that pissed me off was the fact that the National Council of Juvenile and Family

Shhhhh.....it's a secret and not in the guidelines.

Court Judges has a Registered Trademark.

That means it is a private organization.

Private organizations have no oversight, are beholdened to no one, nothing, nada, nixt, rein.

In failing this simple test of public accountability, I am calling these Enhanced Resource Guidelines the national roadmap to trafficking children.

We have no idea who their funders are, what they do with their financing, and if there is any form inurement.

The only focus is for the judges to follow the guidelines to maximize revenues off the children.

There is no mention on referral to law enforcement for Medicaid fraud in child welfare.

There is not one peep on referral or coordination with the Center for Missing and Exploited Children because there is on option to report rape, torture, drugging, murder in foster care and adoption.

What makes matters even worse is that attorneys representing the original parents and children have no clue that they promulgate the fraud of the court.

There is no parallel jurisprudence in dependency courts, yet the attorneys will do what they are told, in fear of losing a paycheck.

Shhhhhh........it is a secret.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Enhanced Resource Guidelines 05-2016 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

If Mathew Spencer Peterson Can Be A Federal Judge, Then A Pro Se Can, Too

This man has no legal acumen to even hold a gavel.

There is nothing written in the U.S. Constitution which mandates a private corporation, the American Bar Association, to decide who has access to a court of law, including access to opportunies to either be appointed or elected to the judicial branch.

States and local governments allow the people to vote for judges, even though the campaign finance systems sucks in the area of judicial candidates, so why is it we cannot have federal elections for judges?

A pro se litigant has more experience than this man, and I just so happen to know a pro se litigant who can run circles around most judges. attorneys. House Judiciary members and their staffers.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission Violates Voting Rights

Recently, I cam across an enlightening post on Linked In by Attorney James W. Burdick

"I am a candidate for a seat on the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission and, if you are a lawyer in Michigan, will appreciate your vote at the Michigan State Bar website."

I stood back in aghast!

Now, if you do not remember, I have an issue with the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission for being biased when it comes to protecting their financial conflicts of interests while presiding on the bench.

"All those who grieve in Michigan against a judge
shall be smyted by the court."

Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission Sucks

So, here is my other issue:

The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission violates voting rights.

That is correct, the people of the State of Michigan who have an issue with a judge have no rights, whatsoever, to have a voice in who decides the grievances against the judges who have violated their civil rights.

By and through a private organization, of which is completely operated under a veil of secrecy, a group of attorneys elected by its paid membership of fee licensed state attorneys who are beholden to no one but the Michigan Bar Association, will transfer only their voices to an elite judicial conclave to run and oversee the domestic policies of the State of Michigan.

But wait, it gets better.

Not only are the people excluded from the vote, they are categorically banned from the voting process.

How so?  Well, t'was by accident I ran across this public campaign pitch on Linked In.

No where in the Michigan Constitution does it state that a private organization shall run the courts.

Hell, it is not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Ergo, no money, no justice.  No law license, no voting rights.s

The pro se litigant has no chance in a court of law as judges will discredit one based upon the lack of economic resources to conduct a civil case in the fashion accustomed by the State Bar.

The people do not possess voting rights, but have no right of dissent, otherwise known as the right to petition for removal from this psuedo-elected office.

As seen here, there are other seats on the Commission which are elected by different groups of elected judges and appointment of the Governor.

No wonder the Michigan Emergency Manager Law went through.  It has been in existence through the court model for years.

Judicial Tenure Commission

The Judicial Tenure Commission serves to promote the integrity of the judicial process and preserve public confidence in the courts. Michigan created the Commission when voters passed an amendment to Article 6, § 30 of the Michigan Constitution in August, 1968. The enabling court rule is now codified in MCR 9.200.

Time to amend.

The Commission strives to hold state judges, magistrates, and referees accountable for their misconduct without jeopardizing or compromising the essential independence of the judiciary. The basis for Commission action is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or Rules of Professional Conduct, which are published with the Michigan Rules of Court.

Click here to access the Judicial Tenure Commission homepage and meeting information

Statute

Michigan State Constitution of 1963, Article 6, Section 30

Contact Information
Phone: (313) 875-5110
Fax: (313) 875-5154
Email: judicialtenure@courts.mi.gov

Written correspondence (including completed Request for Investigation forms)Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
3034 West Grand Blvd.
Suite 8-450
Detroit, MI 48202

Members    

Hon. Pablo Cortes - Vice Chair
Elected by District and Municipal Judges
Term expires 12/31/16

Thomas J. Ryan, Esq.
Elected by the state bar membership
Term expires 12/31/16

Hon. Monte Burmeister

Elected by Probate Judges

Term expires 12/31/17

Nancy J. Diehl, Esq.

Elected by state bar membership

Term expires 12/31/17

David Fischer, Bloomfield Hills
Appointed by the Governor

Term expires 12/31/17

Hon. Nancy Grant
Elected by Circuit Court Judges
Term expires 12/31/18

Hon. David H. Sawyer - Chair
Elected by Court of Appeals Judges
Term expires 12/31/18

Hon. Lawrence S. Talon

Elected by state bar membership

Term expires 12/31/18

Missy Spickler, Bloomfield Hills
Appointment by the Governor
Term expires 12/31/9

Looks like I am going to have to champion this and commence to irritating this "body elected",

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS and GOODLATTE Applaud Committee Passage of Legislation to Address Bankruptcy Judicial System

Washington, D.C.— House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and the bill’s chief sponsor, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.), issued the following statements upon the House Judiciary Committee’s approval ofBankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (H.R. 2266) by a voice vote. 

“While bankruptcy is never a word anyone wants to hear, the bankruptcy process is an essential part of our economy. Our bankruptcy system allows hardworking individuals and businesses large and small to use our laws to help preserve their assets and strengthen their financial future.  

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Member Conyers: “The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 authorizes the creation of permanent bankruptcy judgeships based on the recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States."

“The authorization of these additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships, including the conversion of temporary bankruptcy judgeships into permanent judgeships, will help to ensure there are adequate judicial resources and an efficient bankruptcy process."

“In particular, I am pleased that the Eastern District of Michigan will benefit from the addition of a new permanent judgeship and the conversion of a temporary judgeship to permanent status.”

“An efficient bankruptcy system is essential to get hardworking Americans and businesses back on their feet, and a strained system only hampers essential benefits our bankruptcy laws are intended to provide."

Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017  will create a long-term fix to the bankruptcy judicial system, and allow our bankruptcy courts to operate at a pace that can best serve the American people.”

The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, introduced by Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, will convert 14 temporary bankruptcy judgeships to permanent status and authorize four new bankruptcy judgeships. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act provides for an increase in the U.S. Trustee’s Quarterly Fees for large chapter 11 cases. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission Sucks

The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission sucks and this is why:

To begin, in Michigan, Supreme Court Judicial Candidates are exempted from disclosing campaign contributions.

SCOTUS handed down a wishy-washy ruling on judicial candidates soliciting campaign contributions.

Judicial lobbying is something that goes on everyday, meaning that a judge can sit on the board of a child welfare organization while presiding over a case where the chid welfare organization is in front of the court.

The Madame Maura Corrigan used to do it all the time.

But then, there is this particular situation.

I have not checked lately but, back in the dark ages of Michigan Child Welfare, members of the Judicial Tenure Commission used to sit on the boards of child welfare organizations, like St. Vincent Sarah Fisher Residential Center, where, if one was to file a grievance against a presiding judge in a child welfare case like St. Vincent Sarah Fisher Residential Center, the chances were 100% that the grievance would be dismissed.

Dude would not even give the chance to recuse himself when a case was brought to his court, where the defendant was St. Vincent Sarah Fisher Residential Center.

He refused to "entertain" the filing.

Michigan Mandamus Denial by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Before anyone decides to dismiss this blatant conflict of interest, let me tell you a little story about the Michigan Court of Appeals.

See, back in the 1980s, Michigan came up with this brilliant plan to stop the bottle necking of cases going to appeal.

Instead of providing due process for all citizens, the Michigan COA decided to filter cases it deemed worthy upon the reading of "a clerk", not a judge.

These judges were well aware of the questionable operations in the lower courts so the COA restructured to only take cases that would benefit their own personal interests/investments.

So, what had happened was...

The moment I realized
Judge Michael Kelly was mad at me

According to the Michigan court rules, it says that you can file in the COA anything against a public official.

So, I did, but I did it my way.

I filed an ex-parte writ of Mandamus.  

See, this means that I am asking the court to make a decision on whether a public official has to follow a specific statute, and if they do, the court has to make the decision whether to make the public official do it, or make them show up in court and give a good reason why they are not upholding the
law.

So, the clerk actually calls me to tell me that I had to serve the public official.

I told him I did not, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Michigan Court Rules because it was an extraordinary writ.

Needless to say, I made him and Michael Kelly mad because no one had ever identified this error in the restructuring of the COA.

Michigan Mandamus Denial by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Of course, I did not bother filing a Michigan Judicial Tenure Grievance because he would have denied that one, too, just like he did all the others.


JUDGE MICHAEL J. KELLYCOURT OF APPEALS

Of Bloomfield Hills, born 1929 in Cleveland, OH, admitted to bar 1956; trial practice tri-county area; founding partner Kelly, Oster, Brennan, Tatham & Solner; attended John Carroll University, Kent State University and the University of Detroit undergraduate schools (no undergraduate degree); JD University of Detroit 1956; LL.M. University of Virginia (Master of Laws in the Judicial Process) 1982; Korean War Veteran, Eighth Army, Seoul, Korea, 1953-1954; married 1957, four children, Michael, Timothy, John and Kathleen; remarried 1988 to Marilyn E. (Ramirez) who is a practicing R.N., Waterford, Michigan, three stepchildren; former member American Legion, VFW, Knights of Columbus, Board of Advisors of the Saint Vincent and Sarah Fisher Center, Board of Directors of Boysville of Michigan; present member of Detroit Athletic Club, Michigan Handball Association, Trout Creek Condominium Association, Harbor Springs; Director of Incorporated Society of Irish/American Lawyers; professional affiliations include ABA, IJA, AJS, Fellow of the Michigan State Bar Foundation and member of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society, Inc.; elected member of Judicial Tenure Commission June 13, 1977 through December 31, 1985, past Chairman 1981-1982.

So, if you have a case, or know of a case, where you find out a judge did something jacked up like sit on a board or have financial interests with a party of a case, where that particular party committed fraud upon the court, and continues to rule in their favor, you, and the public, are just out of luck.

The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission just sucks.

And so does Kelly Ramsey.

State Supreme Court considers limits on judicial misconduct probes

LANSING, Mich. (WXYZ) - A new rule being considered by the state's highest court could limit complaints of misconduct against judges. Michigan's Supreme Court justices are considering adding a three-year statute of limitations to complaints filed against judges with the Judicial Tenure Commission.

According to the proposed rule, “any complaint filed more than three years after the grievant knew…or should have known...shall be dismissed.” Since 2014, 34 judges across the state have faced some sort of action that began at the Judicial Tenure Commission, which can range from a letter of caution to being removed from the bench entirely.

 "There’s just all kind of reasons why trying to defend something three years after the fact is difficult," said Brian Einhorn, an attorney in support of the rule change.

Einhorn has represented dozens of judges accused of misconduct, from former Judge Wade McCree—who carried on an affair with a litigant—to ex-Justice Diane Hathaway, who was sent to prison for bank fraud.

"If a person knows that a judge did something three and a half or four years ago, I don’t think it’s fair to the judge to have to defend himself," Einhorn said.

But not all attorneys agree. Peter Henning is a former federal prosecutor and today is a law professor at Wayne State University.

 "You’re talking about an individual who has immense power and can be quite intimidating," Henning said.

"If you have certain types of cases, say for example a sexual harassment case, that may take years to surface because the individual who was harassed is going to be intimidated and might not have the strength to come forward for four or five years."

 The proposed rule allows for claims outside of the three-year statute of limitations to be considered for "good cause," but critics fear the term is vague and could lead to prolonged legal battles.

 "Should the judge be able to get off simply because (misconduct) happened more than three years ago?" asked Chanel 7's Ross Jones.

 "But we’re dealing with something that’s probably not going to happen very often,"  Einhorn responded.

 But there have been past examples of misconduct that could have been thrown out with a statute of limitations.

 In Wayne County, Judge Bruce Morrow was disciplined for misconduct that happened years before a formal complaint was filed, including giving bond to a man after he was convicted of rape, even though state law didn’t allow it. Morrow was suspended for two months.

 Today in Livingston County, Judge Teresa Brennan is under fire for her affair with a state police officer that testified in a murder trial in her courtroom.

His testimony helped to send a man to prison.

Their affair happened more than three years before it was finally discovered.

It’s unclear if the JTC is investigating Brennan.

 Still, attorney Brian Einhorn says judges shouldn’t have to defend themselves from years-old allegations, after memories fade and evidence becomes stale.

 "There’s timing for doing everything," Einhorn said.

"And there’s nothing different about a judge being accused of misconduct to a lawyer being accused of malpractice to a doctor being accused of malpractice."

 Except in Michigan, there is no statute of limitations for complaints against lawyers or doctors, either.

Giving judges special protection would be unique and improper, argues Carl Marlinga, who is a judge himself.

 "The unintended effect, certainly, is to offer a level of protection for bad judges," Marlinga said. "With the judiciary, maximum integrity is the minimum qualification.

Anything that would protect or shield a judge from scrutiny I just think is wrong."

 A decision on the proposed statute of limitations and scores of other rules currently being considered by the Michigan Supreme Court could come any day.

 "What is the benefit?" asks Wayne State's Peter Henning.

"What is the upside, other than what appears to be giving judges added protections?"

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Kansas Allows Judges To Profit From Their Child Trafficking Cases

Not only does the State of Kansas sanction and pay for a judge to preside over a case of removal of a child to be placed in foster care, but that same judge can actually place the child in his own home, and receive a foster care payment for it!

But, have no fear, most judges are not so bold in hustling money from the child welfare cases they oversee.

Most judges sit on non-profit boards of the child placing agencies which petition for removal of children to be placed in foster care.

Some judges even solicit campaign contributions from the same agencies which petition to have a child removed and placed in foster care.

Even some politically career orientated judges will legislate and lobby from the bench, without any disclosure of conflicts of interests or recusal.

So much for civil rights because it happens in every state.

Happy Compassionate Human Trafficking Month (formally known as Child Abuse Propaganda Month).

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY’S CONYERS, NADLER & COHEN: TRUMP PLACING BLAME ON THE JUDICIARY FOR TERRORISM & LOSS OF AMERICAN LIFE IS DANGEROUS

MEMBERS SAY: TRUMP MUST RESPECT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS THAT IS SO CRITICAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY

Nearly 50 Members of Congress Introduce Resolution Condemning Trump’s Personal Attacks on the Judiciary

 Washington, DC – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Subcommittee on the Constitution Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-TN), Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Ranking Member, and former chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following joint statement after President Trump’s outrageous comments this morning, where he said of federal judges, “even a bad high school student” would understand that his reading of the law is proper:

“A bad high school student may have a basic understanding of the Constitution, but any President should know when his or her inappropriate conduct and comments can have dangerous consequences. An independent judiciary is fundamental to our constitutional system of checks and balances, created by the founders to protect all of our rights and liberties.  Once again, President Trump has made inflammatory statements that threaten the very legitimacy of our judicial branch.  We take strong exception to Mr. Trump’s outrageous direct and personal criticisms of Judge Robart and our judicial system.  His remarks are so dangerous, even some Senate Republicans have taken issue with them. Mr. Trump must come to his senses and respect the separation of powers that is so critical to our democracy.   Now is the time for all Members of Congress, regardless of party, to lead and stand up against Trump’s reckless and childish statements.”

Yesterday, Reps. Nadler, Conyers, Cohen; Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee; and more than 20 additional cosponsors, introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives reaffirming support for an independent judiciary and opposing personal attacks on judges and the judicial system.

Nearly 50 Members of Congress Introduce Resolution Condemning Trump’s Personal Attacks on the Judiciary by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Judicial Campaign Solicitations Get Supreme Court Review

It can only be hoped that someone will raise the issue of judicial lobbying.

In Michigan, Supreme Court candidates do not have to disclose their campaign finances from other PACs making this race the most expensive in state history.  

Judicial Campaign Solicitations Get Supreme Court Review

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether candidates for judgeships have a constitutional right to solicit campaign contributions, agreeing to hear a case that tests the balance between free speech and judicial integrity.

The justices today said they will hear an appeal from Lanell Williams-Yulee, a former Florida state judicial candidate who was disciplined after signing a mass-mail fundraising letter.

The case will have ramifications across the country. At least 38 states have judicial elections in some form, and 30 of those states ban candidates from making personal solicitations.

Spending on state judicial elections has soared in recent years, topping $56 million in the 2011-12 election cycle, according to a study by three groups, including Justice at Stake, a Washington organization that works to protect the courts from political pressure.

Lower courts are divided on the constitutionality of solicitation bans. The Florida Supreme Court upheld that state’s prohibition, saying it “promotes the state’s compelling interests in preserving the integrity of the judiciary and maintaining the public’s confidence in an impartial judiciary.”

The Florida court said the law places only a limited burden on the speech rights of candidates because the measure lets them raise funds through a separate committee.

Williams-Yulee contends that the fundraising bar does little, if anything, to promote judicial integrity, while at the same time chilling the speech of candidates.

Mass Mailings

Williams-Yulee says the law goes too far by barring candidates from asking for money in speeches and mass mailings. Those solicitations “present little or no risk of undue pressure or the appearance of a quid pro quo,” her lawyers argued in the appeal.

The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the speech rights of judicial candidates since 2002, when a divided court said states must let would-be judges express their views on legal and political issues.

The case, which the court will consider early next year, is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 13-1499.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Who Is More Powerful Than A Judge?

Before indulging in this article, keep in mind that there is no due process in child welfare as you are guilty until proven innocent while also keeping in mind that no judge wants the responsibility of making the determination of removals or termination of parental rights because it would not be a good thing for re-election campaigns.  This is why the power of the decision is beholden to Child Protective Service workers and their counterparts in foster care.

In Michigan, the process is called "rubber stamping".

But the biggest reason judges do not make determinations is because all funding is based on a judicial determination meaning a judge would be held responsible in the event there is ever a False Claims Act complaint filed.

Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur

Emergency child custody hearings too disruptive, Juvenile Court says; judges may stop taking calls

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Judges in Cuyahoga County's Juvenile Court want someone else to make the final decision for removing children from their homes during emergencies -- in part because telephone hearings disrupt the magistrates' schedules and personal lives.

The court's magistrates and judges also want to be relieved of the duty because they feel that many of the calls for emergency hearings and the resulting court orders are "not true emergencies," according to a memorandum filed last month by the children and family services unit of the county prosecutor's office.

But the controversial proposal disregards an Ohio Supreme Court recommendation and has as made for some unlikely partnerships. The prosecutor and public defender's office, often courtroom adversaries, have joined the county Children and Family Services agency in opposing the move.

The change would mean that a magistrate or judge would not be the deciding party. Instead, they would likely appoint the social worker as a servant of the justice system to make the final decision.

The juvenile court administrators declined requests for interviewers, though confirmed in an email Tuesday that they are reviewing how they handle emergency custody cases.

"We look forward to continue to seek solutions that are in the best interest of the children of Cuyahoga County," the email stated.

The prosecutor's memo -- quoting from an internal juvenile court memo written in November -- notes that the magistrates complained that such calls for emergency telephone hearings were "very disruptive" to their daily dockets and personal lives.

In 2011, there were 617 cases that required the magistrates in Juvenile Court to hold an emergency telephone hearing, and then issue a court order for the removal of a child, according the prosecutor's office.

Emergency cases typically involve children who are deemed to be in immediate threat or danger of being harmed. One common case is when neighbors report children who have been left home alone.

Under the current system, a social worker quickly investigates such cases, often visiting the home and interviewing relatives or neighbors. Then, a report is given to others at children and family services. Once the division is in agreement, social workers consult the prosecutor's office and call a juvenile court magistrate for an out-of-court hearing. If the magistrate agrees, a court order is issued over the phone. All of this can happen within a few hours.

In only three of the 617 cases last year did a magistrate go against the opinions of the social worker and prosecutor and refuse a court order, said Pat Rideout, administrator of children and family services.

Still, having an impartial representative of the court as the final decider in such emergencies is crucial, Rideout said.

"This is an enormous intrusion on a family and a parent's rights and you simply don't do that lightly," Rideout said. "The court's role is to review what we do. ... I very much want the court's review and approval."

Rideout, who before taking the helm of the agency last year worked in the juvenile court system as an attorney and magistrate, said Cuyahoga County's court had previously appointed social workers to be officers of the court and gave them the authority to remove children from their homes.

But the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed Cuyahoga County's juvenile justice system in 2004 and strongly urged against the practice. While the practice "appears to be legal," the higher court wrote, it is "not a best practice and may well be a conflict of interest."

Instead, the high court said, children and their parents should have an in-court hearing. If that is not possible, the second choice would be a hearing by telephone, which is what is practiced now.

The high court wrote "ex parte hearings and telephonic orders ensure procedural protections at the earliest possible point in the process."

Cuyahoga County's juvenile court switched to the recommended practice within a few of years of the published report, though in a 2005 response to the recommendations the administration hinted at a concern about the increased caseload telephone hearings might cause.

The letter, dated from July 2005, said the court would review the suggestion and "may conclude there is a need to increase the caseload of the Administrative Judge's Magistrates."

Stephen Rubin, a national court consultant and past president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said "it's not that complicated" to figure out a solution for busy dockets.

"The judges need to change the way they do business," Rubin said. "They need to dedicate a different judge every day to be the on-call judge."

It is unclear how the judges and magistrates in Cuyahoga County's juvenile court handle emergency hearings because they did not provide an interview. Rubin said the county's juvenile court system had once participated in the national council's model court program, which establishes guidelines for handling cases. But the court dropped out of the program -- a move that is unusual, he said.

"The real focus of the resource guidelines is getting the families the help they need and not taking the kids into care unless it's absolutely necessary," Rubin said.

For Yvonne Billingsley, an assistant prosecutor and supervisor of the children and family services unit in the prosecutor's office for more than 16 years, an in-court hearing would be ideal for giving both the children and family ample opportunity to make their case. But the time and resources in-court hearings take make them unlikely.

A telephone hearing, with or without parental involvement, is the next choice and allows the magistrate to ask a "handful of critical questions" of the social worker to make a final decision.

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges offers guidelines saying that the unplanned removal of a child is always traumatic and that the court must make as careful and considered a decision as possible during an emergency. It also states that the courts must provide protection for parents as well.

In his March 21 letter to the Juvenile Court Judges, Cuyahoga County Public Defender Sam Amata, who supervises the juvenile division, argues that the telephone hearings should continue, stating that having a social worker make the decision would be "shirking this obvious judicial responsibility."

Ruth Pollack, Esq. Testimony New York Senate Judiciary Committee

This is so true.  Judges and public officials should disclose all affiliations with banks, insurance companies, pension investments and any other personal business relationship.

Another classic example of Medicaid Fraud in child welfare

After I sit back down from another round of standing ovation to the FBI, I have to take the time to let everyone know that this ongoing investigation should be focusing on Kiddy Kickbacks in Medicaid fraud funding of this jail for kids scheme in Pennsylvania.

Two Former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judges Indicted on Racketeering, Fraud, Money Laundering, Tax, and Related Charges

Dennis C. Pfannenschmidt, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Janice Fedaryck, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Don Fort, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division, announced today that a federal grand jury sitting in Harrisburg has returned a 48-count indictment charging former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. with racketeering and related charges in connection with alleged improper actions of the former judges to facilitate the construction and operation of juvenile detention facilities owned by PA Child Care, LLC and Western PA Child Care, LLC.

The indictment alleges that the defendants engaged in racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery, and federal tax violations and that they received millions of dollars in illegal payments. Along with the criminal charges, the indictment seeks the forfeiture of at least $2,819,500 which is alleged to be the proceeds of the charged criminal activity.

This investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and by criminal investigators of the Internal Revenue Service.

On April 8, the FBI issued a statement requesting the public’s assistance in this ongoing investigation. Anyone with information is asked to call the public corruption task force toll free at 1-866-996-4320.

This case is part of an on-going investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service and is being prosecuted by a team of federal prosecutors led by Senior Litigation Counsel Gordon Zubrod and includes Assistant U.S. Attorneys William Houser, Michael Consiglio, Amy Phillips, and Criminal Division Chief Christian Fisanick. Pfannenschmidt praised this team of investigators and prosecutors for their tireless efforts on behalf of the people of Luzerne County.

An indictment or information is not evidence of guilt but simply a description of the charge made by the Grand Jury and/or United States Attorney against a defendant. A charged defendant is presumed innocent until a jury returns a unanimous finding that the United States has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or until the defendant has pled guilty to the charges.