Gender Biased Family Law Judge is Suspended

Judge suspended for 45 days without pay
Gormley faulted in two cases
By Shawntaye Hopkins
shopkins@herald-leader.com

FRANKFORT — A Central Kentucky family court judge accused of judicial misconduct has been suspended for 45 days without pay and publicly reprimanded.

The Judicial Conduct Commission, the state's judicial oversight body, ruled that Judge Tamra Gormley, whose district covers Scott, Woodford and Bourbon counties, inappropriately handled two cases: a domestic violence hearing in Scott County and a child custody hearing in Woodford County.

A third count against Gormley, which stemmed from a child custody case in Scott County, was dismissed because the commission said the charge was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Gormley's attorney, William Hoskins of Lexington, said he reviewed the order Monday and discussed it with Gormley. Hoskins said they appreciate the commission for dismissing one charge but respectfully disagree with the findings on the other charges.

Hoskins said they are contemplating an appeal.

The commission released its ruling Friday — nearly a month after Gormley's hearing. The commission, the only entity authorized to discipline a sitting Kentucky judge, had until Feb. 19 to render a decision.

The ruling says Gormley violated a man's due process rights in a Scott County case. The commission said she held a man in contempt without advance notice and without his attorney present. Gormley did not witness the actions outside the courtroom that led to the contempt charge.

The commission said that while "a court undoubtedly has the power to hold a person in contempt of court for actions outside the sensory perception of the judge" (as was true in this situation), it "may not exercise that power without holding a hearing that provides the person with advance notice of the contempt proceeding."

On the second count, the commission found that Gormley entered a change of custody order that removed a child from the custody of her father but denied the father the right to put on his own evidence. Gormley, the commission found, acted as an advocate for the mother in that case.

Gormley's actions "were not mere legal error," the ruling says. "A reasonably prudent and competent judge would conclude the conduct of Judge Gormley to be obviously and seriously wrong in all the circumstances of the cases."

Hoskins disagreed. The commission did not cite any Kentucky law that was violated, he said, and there were no independent witnesses who testified against Gormley during the hearing on the charges.

"We truly believe Judge Gormley applied the appropriate Kentucky law and did so in good faith," he said.

Fathers & Families Meets with Massachusetts Governor

Fathers & Families Meets with Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
July 23rd, 2009 by Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Board Chairman

excerpt . . .
A variety of issues were raised, including child support, restraining orders and jailings of fathers. My comments were consistently focused on increasing access to our children. I advocated continuing dialogue to explore and analyze the obstacles that are placed between fit fathers and their children. I emphasized the benefits to children, and the overwhelming public support for shared parenting.

The Governor mulled over various follow-up activities, but made no specific commitments. Nevertheless, I had the feeling that there will be continuing dialogue in some form. Peter Hill shares my view. He wrote, “This was a tremendously positive meeting. I have met with lots of Governors in my day, and this Governor is the most approachable and easy to talk to and he does listen.”

Follow Link Above for full story on Fathers & Families Website

Family Court Unjust to Men

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Family Court Injustices to Men

by Phyllis Schlafly

Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?

Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?

Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?

Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?

Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?

These are among the injustices that the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic Senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.

His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay.

Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as "Bias" author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet "deadbeat dads." But one egregious case did make the news this summer.

Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.

Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support," and after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits.

But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he has now been relieved from future assessments and released from jail, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government is demanding that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he pays off the $16,398 debt the government claims he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father).

This system is morally and constitutionally wrong, yet all the authorities say the court orders were lawful.

Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Wa., police officer Ray Spencer has spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened.

The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone, for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the detective to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the detective after he gave her ice cream.

There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.

It took a lot of pressure on the ELECTED folks to get an investigation of their buddies running the family court racket. But, this shows, with enough moxie, press and political pressure it can be done. It will take a lot here in Washington where we know the Bar Union lawmakers are in bed with the courts. But, if faced with the loss of their office . . . Giddey Up!

State orders audit of Marin family court

Gary Klien

Posted: 07/01/2009 06:58:10 PM PDT

Prodded by Sen. Mark Leno and other lawmakers, the state Joint Legislative Audit Committee voted Wednesday to investigate the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties.

The audit will focus on the use, and potential misuse, of court-appointed specialists in family-law disputes, such as mediators, investigators and therapists.

Critics say such appointees can form incestuous and incompetent networks more concerned with generating fees than helping children through painful custody fights.

"It becomes a service mill, a cottage industry of sorts," Leno said in an interview Wednesday.

"Maybe state law needs to be changed." (Ya think?)

See full story here . . . http://www.whittierdailynews.com/california/ci_12736575

See court victims' comments here . . . http://www.topix.com/forum/source/whittier-daily-news/THLQLKU3JKA9SHQOU


Imagine this investigation here in Hazard County . . .
The state auditors are expected to investigate how court appointees are selected, how they are trained and evaluated, how their fees are established, and how complaints against them are resolved, among other issues.

Dad's 5-Year Fight to Get His Abducted Son

ABC NEWS VIDEO . . . Dad's 5-Year Fight to Get His Abducted Son

WSJ Article . . . Brazil Helps Kidnap American Children

Our prayers and well wishes go out to this American boy and his father. This is an extreme case of parent alienation syndrome and shows how the psychologists for hire contribute to the syndrome. This is a heart warming story where (finally!!!) a court got it right and this boy appears to be coming home to his country and his father. May God further protect them from the minions of evil that pray on children and fathers. Nice to see a court (any court) rule for a father and his child and nice to see Brazil join the 21st century.

This will be a father's day to remember and celebrate for the Goldman family.

Happy Father's Day to all you fighting, caring and loving fathers. NEVER GIVE UP on your kids. Happy Father's Day!

Judge Judy slams woman for "gaming" the DV system

Queue it up to 5:30 to hear spanking #1 where the good Judge tells this woman/girl "You had no basis for a restraining order."


In the part II at :40 you can hear a judge tell her "This is the United States of America" in reference to not serving him properly with notice of a hearing (take note Mike, Mr. Super Victim Lawyer). The judge goes on to say that he better have a lawyer because she knows the DV tunnel of love he has just entered. Let's hope in his county there is actually a lawyer who will defend an innocent man of such charges and is not part of the illegal DV racket. Lastly, at 2:09 the Judge called her on "Gaming the system" and shames her for "using it as a weapon and not a shield." This woman, and all women who game the system, should be ashamed and prosecuted not rewarded. However, she (like most) just didn't "get it" because she is too wrapped up in her Narcissist-Borderline world.


Thanks to the folks at RADAR for getting the word out on this episode of Judge Judy. You can write judge Judy (Scream Queens excepted) and thank her here . . . Judge Judy Opinions.

Alec Baldwin Pretty Much Sums It Up

Family Law Judges are like Pit Bosses at a Casino. Their job is to keep you at the table rolling the dice and to keep spending your money. The attorneys will find a thousand ways to keep you rolling the dice. If you don't have any money or assets, you'll be in and out of there in Ten Minutes.