"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Judges holding seminars for social services how to kidnap children better - to secure federal funds

According to a report published today, the state of Arizona is experiencing an unusually high "surge in foster children and the systems meant to support and protect them".

A three-year study has been funded to figure out the reasons for such a "surge".

Yet, the reason may be on the surface:

1) federal incentive money for social services to take children out of foster care; and
2) judges like #JudgeMarkBrain of Maricopa Juvenile Court (Arizona) who, in 2014, has practiced law and actually TAUGHT social services how to draft their petitions in child protective cases better - the judge instructed the social services to ALWAYS ask for removal of children, because otherwise they would "forfeit federal funds".

Of course, Judge Mark Brain is prohibited to practice law - which he obviously does not give a flying piece of horse manure about.

Of course, Judge Mark Brain is prohibited from taking sides in litigation and advocating for the petition in child protective cases - and, since he already did, and taught social services how to create that "surge" of children in foster care and "systems meant to support and protect them" - he, of course, should be taken off the bench, but who would dare touch him?

Of course, had Judge Mark Brain taught a seminar for parents as to how to beat a child protective case, he would have been taken off the bench in no time.

Of course, the standard for removal of children from the family is whether there is a reasonable belief, based on the child's condition and/or circumstances, that the child's health or life is in imminent danger - not whether those who want to grab the child will or will not receive federal funds.

Apparently, what the judge is teaching is how to engage in hostage hunting and slave trade, see, for example, an account of what is happening in foster care across the U.S. where, according to the 2014 data, 415,000 children were placed?

So, meet the mentor of social services as to how to better grab a child into custody in order to secure federal funds - #JudgeMarkBrain from Phoenix, Arizona:

Judge Brain was appointed by the Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in 2011 and retained in 2014 for the term until 2019, as part of the Arizona Governor's philosophy:

Oh, Judge Brain is very reflective - after all, he is a Judge Brain, the brainy judge.

Here is his official court information:

 Here is the judge's education:

So, the guy is all over the place.

He was

  • educated in college in Iowa;
  • in law school in Michigan, and
  • is now works as a judge and, practically, tutor of social services, in Arizona.
Before his appointment to the bench, Judge Brain had the following experience:

1) a 4-year stint with a business law firm Fennemore Craig that had nothing to do with Family Law practice, but had a lot to do with "government procurement" of federal funds:

2) another 4-year stint in a private law firm of Peshkin & Kotalik having nothing to do with Family Law, but a lot to do with commercial litigation;


3) 5 years in a position of a "Commissioner" of Maricopa County Superior Court - attorneys who act in the position of a judge, handling "specific assigned cases and uncontested matters".

Yet, "government procurement" and commercial litigation experience, obviously, died hard with Judge Brain - because he obviously understands his duties and position in child protective cases not as a neutral adjudicator in the best interests of the child, but as a legal and financial advisor to social services as to how to secure federal funds, best interests of the child be d***ed.

So, at least one of the factors that caused the "surge" of children into Arizona foster care, and a swelling of "services" for such children is a no brainer - it is the brain product of Judge Brain who undertook to teach social services how to draft their petitions better, and to always, always include a request to remove children from their parents - to secure federal funds - whether it was warranted by the circumstances or not.

See Judge Brain with his teaching PowerPoint slides:

See that the seminar was held in a courthouse, with approval of the Superior Court #judgeAimeeAnderson:

Such an advice was obviously given with an implied promise that judges will always grant such requests for removal of children from families, whether the removal was or was not warranted by circumstances - because the judge wants to "help" social services.

And that is an apparent criminal collusion to fix child protective cases.

I wonder how many lives of children and their parents Judge Brain has managed to ruin so far.

And, I truly hope that Judges Brain and Anderson are taken off the bench for their teaching/human trafficking endeavors, disbarred and criminally prosecuted.

I do not know whether Judge Brain was receiving kickbacks from social services and a portion of the federal funds he helped secure, but he clearly was helping to break the law, and to take children from the families without any basis, as a human trafficking hunt in order to get more federal funds for the county. 

No comments:

Post a Comment