Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Judicial Grievance against Sibley G. Reynolds filed 01/19/2010

I, Jonathan Finley, do respectfully file this judicial grievance against Judge Sibley G. Reynolds. Judge Reynolds has violated the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics and has given more than an appearance of impropriety in the case of Yorycelin Finley vs. Jonathan Finley.


Charges of violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics



CHARGE ONE
Judge Sibley Reynolds, while serving on the 19th Judicial District of Alabama, did fail to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary as required by Canon 1 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics as described in the circumstances listed in paragraphs 1-4.


CHARGE TWO
Judge Sibley Reynolds, while serving on the 19th Judicial District of Alabama,
did fail to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in his activities as required by Canon 2 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics as described in the circumstances listed in paragraphs 1-4.


CHARGE THREE
Judge Sibley Reynolds, while serving on the 19th Judicial District of Alabama,
did fail to perform the duties of his office impartially and diligently as required by
Canon 3 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics as described in the circumstances listed in paragraphs 1-4.


1. The petitioner, Yorycelin Finley, has been an employee of Chilton county since 2004. Ms. Finley has worked at the Chilton county jail located in Clanton, Alabama and has also worked as a courtroom interpreter at the Chilton county courthouse for the same period. Ms. Finley has served as an interpreter in Judge Reynolds courtroom and has formed relationships with the 19th circuit court judges and Chilton county courthouse employees.
Yorycelin’s employment at the courthouse as an interpreter ended in the spring of 2009. Her employment at the Chilton county jail did not end until the week before her leaving Alabama on August 14th. No longer an employee of the courts, Yorycelin should have been required to follow the same rules of the courts just as any other citizen is required. Nonetheless Ms. Finley has been continually allowed to enter and exit the courthouse through keyed, side doors and allowed access to the back hallways of the courthouse during the court proceedings.
She has been allowed to bypass the security measures located at the front of the courthouse putting myself and my family, as well as others in the courtroom in danger.
A judge should not hear a matter in which the judge has a conflict of interest such as a personal interest in the outcome of the case. A judge must disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his or her impartiality could possibly be cast into doubt. A judge is an officer of the court and is expected to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.


2. On September 2nd 2009, Yorycelin (petitioner) was witnessed entering the Chilton county courthouse at around 5:20 pm. The front door to the courthouse was unlocked by a courthouse employee to allow Yorycelin entry. The courthouse was closed for business and the doors had been locked at 5pm. Yorycelin was inside the courthouse for approximately 15-20 minutes and then exited through the side door of the courthouse. Less than 10 minutes later Judge Reynolds also exited. This was witnessed by several of my family members and friends which were seated at the pavillion located at the southwest corner of the courthouse. Each of them expressed their disgust at how blatantly unethical Judge Sibley Reynolds had conducted himself.

Witnesses to the events :

Jonathan Finley,
Kayla Finley,
David Finley,
Hazel Finley,
Mike Steaphens,
Sue Walker,
Jo Anne Smith,


3. On August 7th 2009, attorney’s Elizabeth Hilyer and Amanda Baxley requested on my behalf that Yorycelin Finley be ordered to have my children present at the custody hearing scheduled for September 2nd, 2009 at 9 o’clock. Judge Reynolds approved the request and it was added to the temporary order and noted in the judicial summary.
When Yorycelin appeared in court on September 2nd 2009 without my children which Judge Reynolds himself had ordered, Judge Reynolds would not consider a contempt of court charge against Ms. Finley. My wife Kayla and I were told by attorney Amanda Baxley that Yorycelin had phoned Judge Reynolds and he had told her it would be okay to appear in court without the children.
Any phone contact between Judge Reynolds and Yorycelin Finley which is not on public record is considered ex-parte communication. Under the Judicial Code of Conduct a judge may not permit or consider "ex parte communications" in deciding a case unless expressly allowed by law. This ban helps judges decide cases fairly and also preserves public trust in the legal and court system.



Yorycelin Finley’s failure to obey the order from Judge Reynolds should have resulted in a civil contempt of court charge and Judge Reynolds non-enforcement of his order erodes public confidence in the integrity of the courts and gives the appearance that Judge Reynolds has allowed his relationship with Yorycelin Finley to influence his judicial conduct or judgment. An ex parte judicial proceeding, conducted without notice to, and outside the presence of, affected parties, would appear to violate the U.S. Constitution.
Under the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A bedrock feature of due process is fair notice to parties who may be affected by legal proceedings.


4. Judge Reynolds has shown complete disregard for the Alabama Relocation Statute (§30-3-160) which promotes the general philosophy in this state that children need both parents, even after a divorce. In proceedings under this article unless there has been a determination that the party objecting to the change of the principal residence of the child/children has been found to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a change in the principal residence of the child/children is not in the best interests of the child/children. The party seeking a change of principal residence shall have the initial burden of proof on the issue.
By allowing the children to be removed from the state of Alabama before the hearing process was completed, Judge Reynolds has effectively nullified the Alabama Relocation Statute which governs all relocations, and Judge Reynolds has ignored the legitimate interests of the Noncustodial parent and the children in maintaining our existing relationships. Only limited phone contact has been allowed between myself and my children since their removal from Alabama. Yorycelin did not allow phone contact between myself and my sons on Christmas day and the physical address for my children is currently unknown.
It has been almost six months since filing the initial motion to prevent Yorycelin from removing my children and Judge Reynolds has not completed the hearing process. Further hearings has not been scheduled and my children are now enrolled in school in California.
With my son’s Kevin and Brandon being removed from this state and my visitation and reasonable communication having been removed it is obvious the spirit of the Alabama Relocation Statute (§30-3-160et seq., Ala. Code 1975) has been violated. It is Judge Reynolds duty and responsibility to the voters and taxpayers of this state to uphold this statute in the highest esteem and follow it’s guidelines to the best of his ability. It is because of the Alabama Family Rights Association that I was made aware of this statute. The statute was never addressed by Judge Reynolds. Because of Judge Reynolds complete disregard for this statute and it’s protections under the law, my constitutional right’s as well as those of my two sons have been violated.






Judge Sibley Reynolds and the courts erred by failing to apply the Alabama Parent-Child Relationship Protection Act ("the Act"), § 30-3-160 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, specifically the presumption found in §30-3-169.4, Ala. Code 1975. Section 30-3-169.4 states:

"In proceedings under this article unless there has been a determination that the party objecting to the change of the principal residence of the child has been found to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a change of principal residence of a child is not in the best interest of the child. The party seeking a change of principal residence of a child shall have the initial burden of proof on
the issue. If that burden of proof is met, the burden of proof shifts to the non-relocating
party."

I have not had physical contact with my sons since they were removed from Alabama on August 14th, 2009 and taken to California. No visitation schedule has been ordered
by Judge Reynolds.

I, Jonathan Finley, do pray this honorable commission will consider these facts and offer some relief to myself and my family. I pray the commission will find that Judge Sibley Reynolds has been reasonably biased and he be removed as Judge from this legal matter.

Sincerely,
Jonathan S. Finley

5 comments:

  1. he is not a fair judge .we are currently dealing with this

    ReplyDelete
  2. I been dealing with his ass since 2010 with a conflict of interest and my mentally Ill ex wife who fled CPS in Georgia. She was born and raised and the judge Reynolds slways have gotten her and her family out of trouble several times in the past. I have complained to Alabama bar numerous times to recuse him but failed. Thry ignored over u child support modification orders and I went there to retrieve my kidnapped daughters a decade ago. My ex wife has violated the divorce decree several times and no punishment happened. I have no contact with my kids at all. I'm currently working on getting congress involved because many of his actions are not protected by judicial laws. Him and my ex wife are going to pay for what they did to me these past 12 years plus she frauded using my social to file a fraud tax return and I had to file police reports and all but nothing happened to her. I slept in a holding cell a week and called a nigger and ammonium nitrate put up my nose and in other folks urine in a straight jacket all for fighting for my kids. It's much more to the story plus 3 lawyers I had there intentionally misrepresented me and lost my evidence and withdrew from my case. I had fake warrants drawn up while in court so then they call my name and I suddenly have a warrant. I had cops even warn me what I already knew which I was being setup each time I drove 5 hours to get there. I'm the 1 that will never let him get away with this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He has not been removed. He’s still there. I gotta go see him in 30 days. 😔

    ReplyDelete