usajudges.com
What makes the biggest difference to how your day in court will go? The facts? Your lawyer? The jury?
None of the above.
The single biggest factor on whether you receive justice is simply the judge presiding over your case. The news is full of stories of justice delayed or denied because of the whims of the judge. Although sometimes as in the case of one Court in Nevada, the judges are too busy fighting amongst themselves.
People should remember judges are people too, and like most people - can be influenced. Unfortunately the judicial commissions which exist solely to address judicial misconduct, often protect judges, instead. For the few cases where judicial misconduct is addressed, sadly, they are often not adjudicated in a timely manner.
This is separate from the occasional case of bribery that visited much of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. But, apparently, bribery is an ongoing issue on the court, as reported by the New York Times on four New Jersey judges.
As one California case demonstrates, a San Benito County judge is allowing previously-declared vexatious litigants now facing over 150 felony criminal charges, to continue harassing their victims. This would make anyone think twice before visiting Hollister, California. Judicial commissions? Hopefully, the Commission on Judicial Performance is investigating - but that's small comfort to the hundreds of people already and continuing to be adversely impacted by the Defendants.
And yet, it’s the lowly traffic ticket that continues sticking to the heel of judges. Catherine Gallagher is the Presiding Judge of Santa Clara County. Gallagher is married to former judge, now disbarred attorney William Danser. Danser was removed from the bench for his ticket fixing proclivities.
For larger crimes USAjudges.com announces the twin, judicial indictments out of Louisiana for Racketerring.
Most attorneys know which judges uphold their oath to be impartial as well as those who do not. (But they don't always share this information with clients). But overcoming judicial bias is one reason attorneys hire trial consultants. California attorneys can file a pre-emptive challenge to get rid of a biased judge, but this common sense remedy is not available in most states. As such a pre-trial report from a judge USAjudges.com on a judge is useful, and especially so during judicial elections.
USAjudges.com addresses the need people have to learn about current judges who want to retain office. Now people have the ability to a little more about their judge, or how a particular judge has ruled in the past.
Don't expect your lawyer will necessarily tell you what you need to know. Don't roll the dice when you've got your finances or even your freedom on the line. Get the edge you need by getting the information you lack.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Sibley G. Reynolds removed!
Judge Sibley G. Reynolds was removed from my custody case in the 19th Circuit court. Awaiting notification of our new judge on the case and the return of my sons to the state of Alabama.
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
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
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Who are the real Tyrants?
" The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants"........ Quote from Thomas Jefferson, taken from "The birth of a nation", by Arthur M. Schlesinger. I have to ask the question "who are the real Tyrants"? Is it the lowly suicide bomber from a repressive third world nation? Or could it be someone much larger with much more power?
I wish Thomas Jefferson were still alive..... I bet he could tell us.
I wish Thomas Jefferson were still alive..... I bet he could tell us.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
2010
Wow, it's 2010. What happened to the last 10 years? It seems like Y2K was just yesterday. I wish I knew a way to slow the clock. With everything that's going on in our country maybe slowing time isn't the best idea. A slow, painful death was never very appealing to me...
The socialization of America it seems is the fundamental change president Obama was talking about. How much of the America our forefathers fought and died for will survive? What will we look like in another 10 years? Will American's join together and fight again or will we just turn the other cheek, allowing them to lead us around like an ox with a big fat hook in our noses??
We live in interesting times they say. We may be the last great generation, the next appearing more like a mass of robots surviving only on what little scraps our government throws their way.
Political correctness has raped our nation. Will the day come when we will open our mouths to spew fire and brimestone, not allowing others to control our thoughts and words?
I feel like i'm walking a tightrope..... i'm at the very end and will soon take that leap. That leap to safety and relief. But it's not time yet, I still have a ways to go. I can see it, it's in view. Can I go the distance??
We'll see.
The socialization of America it seems is the fundamental change president Obama was talking about. How much of the America our forefathers fought and died for will survive? What will we look like in another 10 years? Will American's join together and fight again or will we just turn the other cheek, allowing them to lead us around like an ox with a big fat hook in our noses??
We live in interesting times they say. We may be the last great generation, the next appearing more like a mass of robots surviving only on what little scraps our government throws their way.
Political correctness has raped our nation. Will the day come when we will open our mouths to spew fire and brimestone, not allowing others to control our thoughts and words?
I feel like i'm walking a tightrope..... i'm at the very end and will soon take that leap. That leap to safety and relief. But it's not time yet, I still have a ways to go. I can see it, it's in view. Can I go the distance??
We'll see.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Liberty......
"When the people fear their government it's called tyranny... When a government fear its people it's called Liberty". Thomas Jefferson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
