Judge Shopping?  --  See for Yourself

Judge Shopping is discussed in Paragraph  six (6) of this pleading. When you read how the eight (8) Level Propane Bankruptcy petitions were filed, keep in mind that each such filing takes at least seven (7) minutes to process. That means the lawyer that let them in line had to wait almost an hour to finish his filings for his individual clients.

AMERIGAS HEADQUARTERS BUILDING BURNS OVERNIGHT. WHERE ARE THE LEVEL PROPANE BACK-UP TAPES?"

* AOL Main * Mail * AIM * Join AOL dotSign In  Sign In Get HelpClose Search the Web Click here to find out more! Main >> Education & News  >> National AOL Hometown  Search  | Help *THE INSIDER* */A Legal Reform Publication/* *KENNEDY?S CORNER* Contact Linda Kennedy @: WBFLegal@aol.com  Office: 416 London St., Portsmouth, VA 23704 Get on Kennedy?s email list. Check out Kennedy's Website @: www.WBFLegalReform.com  *Listen to Kennedy?s Radio Show: * Kennedy hosting */Precious/**/ Time/*  M-F, 1-2:00 P.M. ESTcovered on several A.M/FM. Stations around the country Go to the story of the Crime of the Century at www.wbflegalrefrom.com  (Will the Real Joyce and Dave Please Stand Up!" Holodeck Law is almost pshed! Read about the Litigation Vortex and what you can do about it @ Kennedy's Website ___________________________________  *Sherman Skolnicks: Journalist and Legal Reformer, alleges** Bush takes votes * On a recent broadcast with Alex Jones, Mr. Skolnick, a long time judicial reformer, jailed 8 times for contempt, and the man who almost single handedly brought forth ?Operation Greylord,? where 20 judges and 40 lawyers were convicted for taking and making bribes, was the guest. Mr. Skolnick alleges to have quite a bit of inside information on a number of leaders including Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, the Bush family, and of course on the judicial system. Mr. Skolnick stated that the tangled web first started with Bush?s involvement with Skull and Bones. e stated that this organization forces those elites wishing membership to act in a number of compromising ways in order to use it as blackmail down the road. Interestingly, Connie Chung was going to broadcast stated that the tangled web started with Bush?s involvement with Skull and Bones. He stated that the organization those elites wishing to have membership to act in a numbr of compromising ways in order to use it as blackmail down the road. Interestingly, Connie Chung was going to broadcast a Skull and Bones documentary, but was stopped by the ?higher powers? in the network, on the day the video was to air. Skolnick also stated that Bush was involved in the 300,000 ?disappearing? votes which occurred in Tennessee, and which set up the free-for-all in Florida, home of Jeb Bush. Sherman Skolnick?s website is: http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ and he also writes on ?The overthrow of the American Republic,? which can be found at the same site.  ----------------------------------------End------------------------------------- *Virginia Judges Accused of Taking * *Kickbacks from Bail Bondsmen* It is critical that we understand what is happening ?behind the scenes? in these rogue courtrooms, and understand that if it is happening in one area of the country, it is most likely happening in other areas as well. On a recent Hotseat for Judges radiobroadcast, former bail bondsman, Sherry Battle, of Virginia talked about Judges , police, and clerks, receiving kickbacks on bond money posted by the ?victim? of this court abuse. Ms. Battle was working as a bail bondsman in Norfolk, Virginia at the time. For those that are not clear on this job description, if someone is arrested, that person may have to post bond. What this means is that the court will release that person from jail if he assures that he will not flee the jurisdiction. He assures the court he will not flee by posting bond.  As an example, if I am arrested, and I have to post $5,000.00 bond, in Virginia that means that I have to either give the court this amount of money for ?safe keeping,? or I can call a certified bail bondsman, and pay them a percentage of that money (usually 10%), and then the bondsman guarantee the rest of the amount. So, in this example, I would pay the bail bondsman $500.00 and $4,500.00 would be guarantee by the bail bondsman. If, I am freed and then flee, then it is up to the bail bondsman to *Under Construction* ----------------------------------------------End------------------------------------ *Ohio: Lawyers did me in, says ex-owner, *03/16/03 Scott Hiaasen and Dave Davis, Cleveland Plain Dealer Reporters Just a year ago, he thought he might make it. The debts and lawsuits were piling up, the banks were closing in, but Bill Maloof was confident his Westlake company, Level Propane Gases Inc., would survive. Then, one morning last February, Maloof got the phone call he had been dread ing: Get down here, his lawyer said. Maloof raced his Range Rover downtown to the oak-and- brass offices of Benesch Fried lander Coplan & Aronoff. Lawyers Michael Primrose and Greg Gale met him in a conference room on the BP Tower's 23rd floor - a room similar to the one where, days earlier, he had entertained an offer to buy his company for roughly $160 million. This time, the mood wasn't so buoyant. Primrose and Gale laid out Maloof's only option: Sign over the voting rights to his company's stock and give control of the business to an outside consultant, or the banks would drag Level Propane into bankruptcy. Maloof didn't hesitate - he would do it. Leaving the meeting, he felt as though he had dodged a bullet. He had bought some time to sell the company and climb out of debt. And he thought his lawyers had saved him. One year later, however, Level Propane is indeed in bankruptcy, the nightmare scenario Maloof had hoped to avoid. Now Maloof contends in court filings that his lawyers not only failed to protect the business, but also worked in concert with the banks to take it over, an allegation the Benesch law firm vigorously denies. Maloof's claim, and similar complaints from others in the 10-month-old case, already have been heard by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randolph Baxter, said John Banks, Benesch's chief operating officer. "Judge Baxter ruled . . . that there was no conflict of interest, and that there was no inappropriate behavior by Benesch," Banks added. Still, that hasn't deterred Maloof, who continues to file motions with the court on his own behalf because he can no longer afford a lawyer. His financial situation has steadily deteriorated since June, when the three banks holding $83 million in loans to Level Propane kicked Maloof out of the company. Today, the business he started in 1990 on a single lot in Columbia Township is poised to be sold to Cleveland developer Richard Jacobs - at a fraction of its value, Maloof claims. "I would have handed them [the banks] the keys rather than go bankrupt," Maloof said. "I trusted Benesch because they were my lawyers." After the bankruptcy petition was filed in June, Maloof's claims of malpractice and conspiracy were treated as little more than background noise in the complicated case, which fills 27 accordion legal files at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Cleveland, entangling dozens of companies, thousands of jilted customers and tens of millions of dollars. Then, last month, Maloof gained an unlikely ally - a former Benesch lawyer who has accused his ex-colleagues of essentially setting up their client for a takeover by the banks. The accusations of unethical conduct and deceit against Benesch threaten to turn the case on its head. On Feb. 14, former Benesch attorney Mark Schlachet filed court papers accusing the firm of betraying Maloof in favor of the banks, which then maneuvered to keep Benesch as Level Propane's lawyers even after the bankruptcy and Maloof's ouster. Level Propane has brought the Cleveland-based law firm nearly $2.9 million in fees - $500,000 paid while Maloof was trying to protect his company from the banks, and $2.4 million paid since those banks took control. "From the inception . . . the bank group has exercised undue influence over [Benesch's] discharge of its duties as debtor's counsel," Schlachet said in court papers. A U.S. trustee in the bankruptcy case has asked for an independent investigation of Schlachet's claims. He told the federal judge hearing the case that the allegations of "dishonesty, misconduct and mismanagement" against Benesch and the "contentious history" of the case warrant "investigation by someone without any taint of self-interest." A hearing on the issue is scheduled for March 25. Schlachet raised the charges in a complaint seeking more than $2 million from his former law firm for not properly compensating him when distributing the Level Propane fees among Benesch lawyers. Schlachet says in court documents that a senior partner, James Hill, wrongly took credit for bringing Maloof's company to the firm. Benesch terminated Schlachet's $175,000 a year contract in March 2003. Banks said the law firm views Schlachet's complaint "as an ordinary employment dispute." The decision to end his employment was made because his performance wasn't up to the firm's standards, Banks said. He would not elaborate. But Schlachet's claim against Benesch, now in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, shows that he was at odds with the firm's partners over what he saw as ethical issues. It also reveals dozens of internal Benesch e-mails showing the candid, sometimes crass, discussions of lawyers concerned with their client's ability to pay its bills. "Strange situation and apparently strange company," said Hill, Benesch's managing partner in a Dec. 10 e-mail as the firm sized up its prospective client. "If we are engaged, and there is a three-firm race, we will need to get a significant retainer and be careful on making sure we get it replenished when necessary." Benesch was hired and in March, an outside consultant took from Maloof responsibility for paying the legal bills. That consultant, John Rudd, had the legal bills sent only to him, sometimes at his home. Benesch was usually paid by wire transfer the same week. E-mails show the firm's enthusiasm for the client growing: "...hopefully more partners will be aware of the client's potential to pay . . ." Banks wrote to Hill when he learned that a person friendly to the law firm had taken over at Level. Even before Schlachet's complaint, Benesch's role as Level Propane's firm was criticized in court filings by the bankruptcy trustee, Saul Eisen, and by a group of companies that had leased propane equipment and trucks to Level. The trustee wrote that conflicts of interest should have prevented Benesch from remaining as the company's firm. The leasing companies - who are competing with the banks to get their loans repaid - say the law firm has allowed the banks to essentially run the gas business, in return for generous fees, court records show.  "The bank group has by all appearances eliminated the independent decision-making of counsel for the debtors and even the creditors' committee by providing overly generous carve-outs for professional fees," lawyers for the lease-holders said in an October court filing. Benesch denies wrongdoing, saying all this has been argued before the judge, who has found no fault with the law firm. When Schlachet first brought his complaints to the firm's management - as part of an effort to increase his pay based on the Level Propane case - an ethics attorney within the firm determined that his complaint had no merit, records show. "You were quite correct to voice your concerns," wrote David Mellott, a partner overseeing business reorganizations, "even though they proved to be unfounded." Sixth-largest supplier Bill Maloof may best be known as the owner of Park Place Inc., the long-term parking lot on Snow Road near Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. But he found even greater success with Level Propane, the gas company he built from nothing to become the sixth-largest propane supplier in the country. Level, which now goes by the name "Horizon Propane," provided tanks and fuel to heat thousands of rural homes in 14 states from Ohio to New York to New Mexico. But Maloof's business tactics were constantly criticized. Customers complained that he signed them to unfair contracts, concealing costs and hiking seemingly fixed prices. In 1998, Level Propane was named in a $6 million class-action suit brought by 60,000 Ohio customers for violating consumer-protection laws. In 2000, the Cleveland Better Business Bureau received more than 1,600 complaints about Level's tactics - more than any other company that year. By 2001, attorneys general in several states, including Ohio, sued Level over its business practices. The company eventually paid out more than $20 million in settlements. Customers fled, while propane prices soared, squeezing the company. Maloof blames most of the problems on the law firm that drew up his customer contracts. The particulars that allowed him to change what he was charging were in fine print on the back, a contract flaw that the attorneys general seized on. "Did we make mistakes? Yes," Maloof said. "Did the attorneys general give us a raw deal? Yes. Did we make good? Yes." A company in trouble Still, Level's insurance company dropped it, and its biggest lenders - Deutsche Bank, LaSalle Bank, Provident Bank, and BT Commercial Corp., an arm of Bankers Trust - were getting restless. Two years earlier, Maloof had signed an $80 million loan agreement with the banking group, and now he was in default. As collateral, Maloof offered up his stock in both Level Propane and Park Place, and guaranteed the debts personally. In effect, the banks could take over Level Propane at any time. At the same time, Level owed money to the companies that leased its tanks, trucks and other equipment, and gas suppliers and other companies, records show. In November 2001, Maloof began looking for a good lawyer, though he hated the idea of bankruptcy. Maloof talked to Cleveland lawyer Ken Seminatore, who recommended Schlachet, a recent addition to Benesch's roster. Seminatore and Schlachet were old friends. Schlachet was a local bankruptcy judge before resigning in 1982 amid allegations that he created an appearance of impropriety by steering court business to another judge's nephew, then working at Seminatore's law firm. After the scandal, Schlachet rented an office there. Schlachet knew that if he could land the Level Propane case, it would be big. He thought the case could vault him back among the city's legal elite and earn him points with the partners at Benesch, with whom he had signed a two-year contract in July 2000. But Maloof still held out hope that bankruptcy could be avoided. He had discussed selling the company with competitors and investment bankers. He thought he could get $160 million or more, pay off the debts and go back to running his airport parking lot. And he was slow to commit as a Benesch client. Inside Benesch, Level became a hot item, court papers show. Because of the sale discussions, several other lawyers got involved - notably Hill, the firm's managing partner. The Benesch e-mails filed with the court show that the lawyers, particularly Hill, were wary of Maloof. They feared he wouldn't pay his bills. "Dominic tells me they have used about every firm in town and stiff people on fees," Hill wrote in a Dec. 10, 2001, message to Schlachet. "We need to get a retainer if we do the deal." Level's history of consumer complaints also didn't reflect well on the company or Maloof. The following day, after researching the company, Hill warned colleagues, "these guys are really bad guys." Maloof finally hired Benesch and paid a $100,000 retainer - the first of more than $500,000 in pre-bankruptcy fees - on Jan. 22, 2002. Maloof was an ambivalent, if not difficult, client. At one point in January, he instructed the lawyers to be ready to file bankruptcy papers at a moment's notice. He backed off a few days later, banking instead on a sale or a kind-hearted investor. Maloof demanded that most of his retainer be spent on efforts to save the company, not bankruptcy preparations. Maloof was boosted by a February meeting at the Benesch offices with executives from Star Gas Propane, a Connecticut energy firm, who wrote a letter offering to buy Level for about $160 million. Around the same time, an investment group named Parthenon also showed interest in the company, offering $127 million. Offers fizzle It's unclear now how serious the discussions were, but neither offer panned out. At one point, Parthenon's bid dropped to $26 million. By Feb. 17, the bank group was threatening bankruptcy, court records show. Two days later, Hill sent Schlachet a message: "Why does the bank want Bill out of everything?" he asked. Schlachet's answer: "Bill is not trusted." It was only a few days later when the Benesch lawyers summoned Maloof to their office and gave him the banks' ultimatum. Maloof, Level's only shareholder, signed over his voting rights, effectively losing control of his company. In his complaint, Schlachet suggests that the meeting with Maloof was choreographed in advance between Benesch lawyers and the banks. In essence, Schlachet says, Maloof's lawyers set their client up, an allegation that Benesch flatly denies. "As lawyers, we serve our clients," Banks said. "That's our main interest." Schlachet also indicates in court papers that Benesch failed to explain to Maloof that by filing a so-called "defensive" bankruptcy he would have retained control of the company, even after signing away the voting rights. In February, Schlachet suggested to H. Jeffrey Schwartz, head of Benesch's business reorganization department, that Level Propane be referred to another law firm because of Benesch's mismanagement, court records show. ". . . I do not believe this client has more than two alternatives, one of which is going to be a prompt [bankruptcy] filing. The other is effective loss of control. . ., Schlachet wrote. He added that it was in the best interest of the client to be told, immediately, that Benesch was not ready to quickly file bankruptcy for Level and Park Place. Said Schlachet,"We have a professional responsibility to disclose our state of mind. We have an obligation at this point not to lull the client into a false sense of security. . ." Holding out for a buyer This was never communicated to Maloof, who went on thinking that he just had to hold on long enough for a buyer. But to do that, according to the agreement he signed with the banks in February, Maloof had to hand day-to-day control of his company to a consultant named John Rudd of NewMarket Partners. Maloof had worked with Rudd a year earlier, but he now says he had no idea that Rudd was a client of Benesch's in other legal matters. Though Rudd was ostensibly chosen by the banks, Hill said in an e-mail that he guided Rudd into the job, court records show. "We are way in the black and with John Rudd in as the chief restructuring officer, who I got in with the bank's acceptance, we will get paid every week," Hill wrote to colleagues on March 1. According to Schlachet, Rudd did make sure the law firm got paid in a timely manner: the lawyers faxed invoices to Rudd's house, and made sure Rudd was the only person at Level Propane to get the bills. Rudd did not return calls seeking comment. Two Maloofs Rudd's appointment also signaled a shift in the way the Benesch lawyers regarded Maloof and his company. Maloof still owned the company stock, but he was virtually powerless now. Rudd to some extent became the voice of the company. Soon the Benesch lawyers began distinguishing between Maloof the individual and Maloof the owner of Level Propane. This was necessary for Cleveland's bankruptcy court, where a law firm can't represent a company and its owner, because their interests won't always coincide. This was problematic for the Benesch lawyers, because they advised Maloof on a dispute with the IRS about his personal taxes, court records show. On March 19, a Benesch tax lawyer wrote to Maloof saying the firm was representing him before the IRS. But on April 17, the lawyers prepared another letter stating that they never worked for Maloof personally. In his complaint, Schlachet says the firm was trying to rewrite history to avoid a conflict-of-interest that would force them to drop Level Propane. (The trustee in the bankruptcy case did believe this was a conflict, but U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randolph Baxter disagreed and allowed Benesch to remain in the case because Maloof was never billed.) "We never represented him on the tax matter," Banks said. Around the same time, the lawyers handling the bankruptcy and sale offers began to handle Maloof differently as well. Schlachet says in court papers he was told to avoid contact with Maloof, and Primrose became the primary contact with Level and Maloof. Maloof became increasingly frustrated. Armed with an estimate from an accounting firm that Level Propane was worth $125 million to $150 million, he continued to hope for a buyer or financier. He began to resent Rudd, and when potential buyers backed off, Maloof blamed the consultant. Things came to a head in late May. Maloof says he found out that Rudd was showing his airport parking lot to prospective buyers. Maloof confronted Rudd at Park Place; Rudd has told others that Maloof threatened him, a charge Maloof denies. Maloof then demanded to see all the invoices Rudd had signed for the Benesch lawyers. Rudd handed them over as he walked out of Level's Westlake headquarters. He didn't return and resigned within days. When Maloof saw the bills, he was stunned. He says he had no idea the lawyers had spent so much time preparing for bankruptcy - the outcome he was trying to avoid, fearing the news would scare off his remaining customers. "A gas company cannot go into bankruptcy," Maloof said. Schlachet, however, has argued in court papers that Benesch lawyers were neglectful because they weren't more prepared to go to bankruptcy court, and they failed to sufficiently explain to Maloof how a voluntary bankruptcy could help him. If Maloof could beat the banks to the courthouse, he could prevent them from invoking the stock voting rights he signed over in February, allowing him to retain some semblance of control over his company. A cry from the wilderness' Tensions were also rising at Benesch, where a forced bankruptcy by the banks seemed increasingly likely. But when Maloof called the law firm, he met with resistance, and his specific instructions to the lawyers were ignored, Schlachet says in his complaint. On the morning of June 4, at 9:17 a.m., Maloof instructed the Benesch lawyers not to talk to anyone else involved with his company's problems, including the bank group and other creditors, without his permission. He complained that the company had not followed his instructions. "A cry from the wilderness," Hill said when he saw the e-mail. According to billing records contained in Schlachet's complaint, Benesch attorney William Schonberg did talk to the bank group sometime that same day. The next day, in another e-mail, Maloof demanded to see all the legal papers the firm had prepared. The lawyers stalled, Schlachet says in court papers. In e-mails, Primrose said they were not confident the company's financial information was accurate. But Schlachet says that shouldn't matter, because the lawyers were bound to honor their client's demand. Brian Salvagni, Level's in-house lawyer, appeared at Benesch's office asking for the company's papers. He left empty handed. The following morning, June 6, Hill sent a fax to Level's office notifying Maloof that Benesch was dropping Level Propane as its client. The fax arrived without a courtesy call, so it sat on the machine for a couple of hours. Hill said Benesch was breaking off because Maloof insisted on selling "pre-buy" gas contracts to clients to lock them into an off-season price. Similar contracts had gotten Level into trouble before, and Benesch worried that coming from an insolvent company that this, too, could violate consumer laws. But Maloof was suspicious. His 27-year-old son, Jared, raced down to the BP Building on Public Square. More than an hour and a half passed before Primrose and Schonberg escorted him into a conference room. They told him they knew why he was there, Jared Maloof recalled. Unfortunately, they had received notice from his father's banks that they were exercising their stock voting rights. The banks had removed his father as director of the company. The words devastated the younger Maloof, especially coming from Primrose, a person he respected and had previously come to for help. "I shook his hand and said, You know, Mike, through all this you've been very professional," Jared Maloof recalled. Here, take my keys.' Back in Westlake, Bill Maloof could barely dial the telephone as he frantically called friends asking them what he should do. He and Brian Salvagni decided to make a last stand, to go to bankruptcy court and see if they could stop the filing. On the 32nd floor of the KeyCorp building, they found an assembly line of bank lawyers at the window, passing papers to the clerk who stamped them to be filed. The court was about to close for the day. "Here, take my keys. I'll walk away," Maloof recalls telling them. "Just don't put the company in bankruptcy." He was so upset he couldn't recall if he heard a response. A few minutes later, the two men left. The papers had been filed. But what Maloof wouldn't find out until later was that by the end of the day, the banks had rehired Benesch, just hours after the law firm dropped him as a client, according to court records. In his court papers, Schlachet said he believes Rudd, who became an adviser to the banks after leaving Level, acted as a go-between with the Benesch lawyers, who wanted to remain as Level's law firm even after the bankruptcy and Maloof's ouster. Maloof and Richard Baumgart, a bankruptcy lawyer hired to represent Maloof personally, loudly complained that Benesch should be removed as Level's law firm. Schlachet said Schwartz griped to him that Baumgart's efforts to have Benesch taken out of the case would cost the firm $2 million in fees, according to Schlachet's complaint. Schwartz wasn't far off: Since the banks forced Level into bankruptcy, Benesch has billed for another $2.4 million in fees. Neither Schwartz nor Baumgart would comment for this story. The banks clearly wanted Benesch to stay on. They even offered Maloof $230,000 to drop his objection in the bankruptcy case, Maloof said. Maloof turned down the money, and Baumgart soon resigned. When the banks needed Maloof to approve a change in the bankruptcy case, Maloof says his only demand was that Benesch step aside. Findings unsubstantiated' In court papers, the Benesch lawyers first agreed to stay on only until Level hired new attorneys. But two weeks later, Level's new bank-appointed boss, Charles Sweet, told the bankruptcy judge that Benesch should remain on the case. The judge agreed, over the objections of bankruptcy trustee Saul Eisen. Even before Schlachet's allegations came to light, Eisen said Benesch should be removed from the case because the firm had represented both Rudd and Maloof in other matters. Benesch also represented BT Commercial and a creditor bank in separate cases. "Any impartial observer viewing these cases would be astounded by (Benesch's) relationships with management and creditors alike," Eisen said in court papers. In September, Judge Baxter said the trustee's findings were "unsubstantiated." The Level Propane bankruptcy has been no less contentious in the months since Maloof was ousted. A group of six equipment-leasing companies have challenged in court the roles that both the bank group and Benesch have played with the company. These companies say the banks have exerted so much control over Level that they should be regarded as insiders, rather than simply creditors. Level and its affiliates, they said, are "alter egos for the bank group," according to bankruptcy records. The leasing companies, who say they're owed as much as $30 million, also accused the banks and Benesch with striking a side deal to steer Level to a business group led by former Cleveland Indians owner Richard Jacobs. One of Jacobs' partners, Glenn Pollack, is a friend and business associate of Benesch lawyer Schwartz. In court papers, the banks denied any collusion with the Jacobs group. Jacobs' group, called Eaglerock, now manages Level. Eaglerock will get to buy the gas company for $28 million in May unless a higher bidder comes along, according to an agreement approved by the bankruptcy court. Maloof is sickened by what has happened to his company. He's convinced it's being mismanaged, and what money comes in from propane sales is getting sucked up by a top-heavy bureaucracy. (Sweet, who lives in Florida, receives $10,000 a month to oversee the company, and Eaglerock receives a $100,000 monthly management fee.) "I just want my family name back," said Maloof, who with his son Jared and wife Angie are trying to mount a comeback. "I'm totally shot," Maloof added. "I should have gotten $100 million out of this. Instead, I'm on unemployment. My credit's so bad I can't even get a bag of potato chips." Personal debts are also mounting for Maloof. He was named as a defendant in 13 lawsuits in 2002 alone. He received so many court summonses that he took his name off the lobby directory of the Lakewood condominium he shares with his wife. The condo is now in foreclosure. If Maloof is a victim, he's not the only one. Some 60,000 Ohio propane gas consumers were just days away from receiving millions of dollars from a settlement with Level that was before a federal judge when the banks charged in. The consumers say they were overcharged for propane or forced to pay fees that weren't disclosed, said Kimberly Skaggs, a lawyer with the Columbus-based Equal Justice Foundation, a nonprofit legal group. The settlement has been put on hold, and it's not likely that these consumers will receive much, if anything, said Skaggs, who with three other lawyers has spent hundreds of hours on the case since filing it in 1998. "It's frustrating, especially in light of the huge professional fees that are being charged in the bankruptcy," she said. "I see what these people are getting and I go crazy. When I complain, they just say, That's bankruptcy.'" To reach these Plain Dealer reporters: ddavis@plaind.com, 216-999-4808 shiaasen@plaind.com, 216-9994128 © 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission -------------------------------End---------------------- *Jailed author of Flight 800 book vindicated * *Justice Department concedes wrongdoing in case against **Sander*s Posted: March 13, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com A police officer-turned-investigative reporter who was arrested and jailed because his investigation into the mysterious crash of TWA Flight 800 exposed flaws in the government's official probe ? and who co-authored an explosive new book on the subject ? has found vindication after his five-year legal nightmare. Journalist James Sanders is the author, along with Jack Cashill, of "TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America," published by WND Books. In December 1997, Sanders and his wife, Elizabeth, a TWA flight attendant and trainer who knew Flight 800's pilots and had trained many of its flight attendants, were arrested for conspiracy to steal government property after receiving material from a whistleblower within the Flight 800 investigation. Although Sanders and Cashill have always maintained the charges were trumped up by the government so as to chill and discredit Sanders' investigation into what really happened to Flight 800, it has taken years for official vindication to come. In an exclusive analysis of the case in today's WorldNetDaily, co-author Cashill traces Sanders' legal battle back to March 10, 1997, eight months after the July 1996 destruction of the TWA jumbo jet that took 230 lives. California's Riverside Press-Enterprise newspaper published a story titled "New Data Show Missile May Have Nailed TWA 800," which cited Sanders as an "investigative reporter" and described his private investigation into the FBI and NTSB Flight 800 investigation over the preceding five months. The problem, explains Cashill, an Emmy-Award-winning writer and producer, is that Sanders' investigation "created a significant problem for the Justice Department. The article?s text confirmed that Sanders was on the trail of potential criminal activity within the Flight 800 investigation." Explaining how the Clinton Justice Department went into gear and "used its considerable powers to thwart Sanders" by denying his standing as a journalist, Cashill notes that under President Bush, the Justice Department now admits its predecessors "conspired to print factually false information in a Justice Department letter to deprive [James Sanders] of his civil rights ?" The current Justice Department also now concedes it "fabricated a defense where none existed" in earlier opposing the Sanderses? civil action, writes Cashill. "It also concedes there is no defense for the 32-counts of federal lawlessness committed in pursuit of destroying a journalist and his wife." Cashill, who has created documentaries for regional PBS and national cable channels, and who hosted daily talk radio shows for five years, sums up the importance of the Sanders case: "In so conceding" its previous railroading of Sanders, "the Justice Department tacitly acknowledges that yes, the TWA Flight 800 investigation has been corrupted, and no, we are not prepared to contest this fact." Cashill calls the case "among the most egregious violations of a reporter?s constitutional rights in the history of American journalism." In their groundbreaking expose "First Strike," Sanders and Cashill uncover substantial new information ? including a terrorist connection ? about the fate of TWA Flight 800. Sept. 11, 2001, they claim, did not represent the first aerial assault against the American mainland. The first came July 17, 1996, with the downing of TWA Flight 800. Their book looks in detail at what people saw and heard on that fateful night. The book also shows the relationship between events in July 1996 and Sept. 2001, and proclaims how and why the American government attempted to cover up the truth. ------------------------------------------------------------End----------------------------- ----------------------- *OHIO*:Cuyahoga County News Faith and flash made up life of prosecutor, 02/24/03 Karl Turner and Scott Hiaasen, Plain Dealer Reporters Former prosecutor Aaron Phillips sat alone in a crowd of defendants Thursday, waiting to be arraigned in Cuyahoga County court. He flashed a pained smile at a defense lawyer sitting across the aisle, where Phillips once belonged, in the seats reserved for attorneys. Just a week earlier, Phillips embraced the limelight after he helped win two convictions in the Tonica Jenkins murder-conspiracy case, shown live on Court TV. While he gave a nationwide audience his post-trial victory speech, his suspicious bosses were devising a sting that would prove to them whether he was a crook. And now, waiting to hear his name called from a list of criminal suspects, he cast his weary eyes away from cameras that had come to record his downfall. "Aaron Phillips. Case 427112," Common Pleas Judge Timothy McCormick shouted. Phillips' journey from boy minister in Colorado to fallen 36-year-old prosecutor in Cleveland was rocky. His life has been a study in contrasts - the preacher who liked to party, the flashy dresser swimming in debt, the prosecutor accused of being on the take. As sheriff's deputies hustled Phillips away to fill out paperwork, his father spoke on his behalf outside the courtroom. The Rev. Acen Phillips was asked about the charges. "I'm his father," he said. "Of course, I'm going to say they're unfounded." Prosecutors, however, said Phillips admitted to taking a $2,000 bribe from a man seeking a lighter sentence in a domestic-violence case. They also claim to have found 3 grams of cocaine and scales when they searched Phillips' car and private-practice office. Phillips pleaded not guilty to charges of bribery, attempted obstruction of justice, and possession of drugs and criminal tools. Into ministry early Aaron LaBrace Phillips felt the call to the ministry before he started first grade, preaching sermons at his father's Denver church. He was ordained a minister at age 12. "God called him to preach," said his father, a nationally renowned minister. "He's been preaching all his life." Phillips worked at his father's church, Mount Gilead Baptist Church, until age 16. He then became pastor of a church he started himself through word of mouth, his father said. The same year Phillips became a pastor, he became a father. A relationship with a 15-year-old Denver girl produced a daughter, Janice Crenshaw. Phillips carried on his ministry. Janice's mother cared for her. He excelled in football in high school. Two colleges offered him athletic scholarships, but he chose to go to a school where he could continue his ministry, his father said. Phillips enrolled at Casper College, a community college in sleepy Casper, Wyoming. There, he pastored Christ First Missionary Baptist Church. He graduated from Casper College with an associate's degree in criminal justice. Phillips earned a bachelor's degree in justice administration at the University of Wyoming's Casper campus. His interest in the law led him to the university's law school, where he earned a degree in 1993. He worked with a prison ministry at the state penitentiary throughout his time in Wyoming, and he worked for Legal Aid. Phillips also did legal work for the National Baptist Convention USA Inc., where his father was a high-ranking official. Comes to Cleveland Phillips came from Wyoming to Cleveland in 1996 to help rescue St. Andrews Missionary Baptist Church, then on the brink of foreclosure, his father said. Phillips left behind a failed marriage and three other daughters - LaQuilla, Kareena and Kiana. St. Andrews was embroiled in a contract dispute with a radio station that had landed the church on the auction block. Phillips' father knew the pastor at St. Andrews, who was a reference for Phillips when he joined the prosecutor's office in September 1996.  As a prosecutor, Phillips started working in Juvenile Court and climbed up to handling felonies. He also became an associate minister at Original Harvest Baptist Church, and preached at other churches around Cleveland. In 1998, he married the former Gloria Jackson; that same year, his ex-wife, Bethine, won an order in Wyoming entitling her to 35 percent of his disposable income for child support. In the prosecutor's office, Phillips had a reputation as a smooth talker and a less-than-disciplined worker. Supervisors complained he was inattentive to details, but made up for his shortfalls with rhetorical skills that often charmed juries. "While he scores high for being an excellent shoot-from-the-hip litigator, he is ill-prepared, inconsistent, and unreliable," Phillips' supervisor, Rick Bell, wrote in a January 2001 work evaluation. "We can rely on the fact that he will show up for work late, leave early, and do the bare minimum." But Phillips won some big cases. In addition to the Tonica Jenkins case, Phillips helped convict Angela Garcia in May 2001 of the murder of her two daughters - an important victory after two mistrials. He also won convictions of violent East Cleveland gang members. At the same time, Phillips was building a private practice as a civil attorney - not an uncommon practice among prosecutors, but one that Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason now discourages. More than once this created questionable legal tangles between Phillips' public and private jobs. In one case, he represented Merita White, a Cleveland minister, in a civil dispute just days before she became the target of a criminal investigation. In another case, Phillips helped sue a woman just weeks after prosecuting her, court records show. Phillips also prosecuted at least one case against defense lawyer Don Butler, with whom Phillips shares office space. Phillips also referred clients to Butler on occasion. "There's a point where you can't wear two hats," said Larry Zukerman, a lawyer now seeking a new criminal trial for White because of Phillips' involvement with her case. Mason suspended Phillips twice, and he was reprimanded a third time. Despite these problems, he was promoted to a job as a community-based prosecutor, overseeing all felonies from East Cleveland. "When a situation came up, we sat him down and counseled him," Mason said. "We were always pleased by his responses. That, coupled with his trial ability, made it easy to promote him." Financial pressure Phillips was making nearly $56,000 from the prosecutor's office and more from his civil practice. But debts began to mount. He owes $2,200 to an assistant public defender who rented Phillips a home in Oakwood in 2001, records show. The mother of his first child in Denver is demanding more than $41,000 in unpaid child support. And a former client filed a $20,000 legal-malpractice suit against him. Prosecutors have been poring over the cases Phillips prosecuted to look for additional hints of impropriety. Defense lawyers have already asked to review two cases involving Phillips. But Mason said the accusations against Phillips should not tarnish the integrity of his office. "I had 192 good prosecutors. Now I have 191," Mason said. "It's unfortunate that one prosecutor put a blemish on all the work that we do. But we'll move forward." Phillips must move forward as well. Mason fired him after his arrest. Phillips hired Michael Belcher and the husband-wife team of Roger and Joan Synenberg as his lawyers. The Synenbergs recently brokered a plea deal for stock swindler Frank Gruttadaria. Dressed in a conservative blue suit, a solemn Phillips let his lawyers speak for him in court at his arraignment. Judge John Sutula was assigned the case. Phillips is out of jail on house arrest and $50,000 bond. He is allowed to leave his home to go to the courthouse and to church. As deputies led Phillips out of court to be processed as a criminal defendant, defense lawyers he once opposed watched in disbelief. Some offered words of support. "Tell Aaron we're pulling for him," lawyer Jeffrey Saffold said to the Synenbergs. Phillips' father and his brother, the Rev. Del Phillips, asked for prayers for him. "I would hope that the nation and the city of Cleveland would keep him in prayer." To reach these Plain Dealer reporters: kturner@plaind.com, 216-999-4111 shiaasen@plaind.com, 216-999-4927 sychologist admits failing to heed rules 02/25/03Ted Wendling Plain Dealer Bureau Columbus - The Ohio Board of Psychology, criticized in recent years for its lenient treatment of offenders, yesterday accused one of its own of unethical conduct. Columbus psychologist Jeff D. Sherrill had resigned from the board in November when he learned that his colleagues were investigating three complaints filed against him. Yesterday, he admitted in a consent agreement that he violated standards of care he had helped establish by making child-custody and visitation recommendations to domestic relations or juvenile courts without meeting the children or doing neutral evaluations of the parents. In one of the cases, Sherrill never met the father or the child, but stated in correspondence that the father's "behaviors are clearly detrimental to [the child]." He said he would "be glad to go to court to testify in this case" based solely on statements made by the child's mother. Board records show that the mother had been Sherrill's client for three months. Sherrill could not be reached for comment. The board's order reprimands Sherrill and prevents him from offering written or oral testimony in child-custody cases for one year. Although he is allowed to continue practicing during the next year, the order also prohibits him from using a technique that Sherrill refers to as "directed family counseling." The technique is intended to help families and children who are going through high-conflict divorces "by attempting to engage the parents in a collaborative process of resolving their animosity and ending extreme levels of conflict in the interests of the children." Appointed to a five-year term on the Psychology Board in November 1998, Sherrill abruptly resigned Nov. 5, just weeks after being formally notified by his colleagues that they were investigating complaints filed by three men who were involved in custody disputes with their ex-wives. In his resignation letter to Gov. Bob Taft, Sherrill said simply that it would be "in the best interest of the board that I be replaced with someone who can fully devote their attention to the work of the board. Currently, I am unable to do so." Sherrill is past president of the Central Ohio Psychological Association. He was recruited to the Psychology Board by former board President Rahe Corlis, who had sought appointment after the board found that he had violated an ethical standard. Propelled by an ideology that favored rehabilitation over punishment, Corlis and Sherrill were part of a board majority that consistently gave short suspensions or lenient probationary terms to psychologists found to have committed serious ethical violations, a 1999 Plain Dealer investigation found. In response to the newspaper investigation, state lawmakers expanded the board's enforcement powers in a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Robert Spada of Parma Heights. In the last year, the board has become far more aggressive. After holding just a dozen disciplinary hearings during the 1990s, board members have scheduled four already this year. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: twendling@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272 © 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. M Contact *Kennedy*  if you would like an article submitted. Press Release Source: White House Chronicle -Larry Klayman *Judges? Politicians in Robes, Judicial Watch's * *Klayman Says on 'White House Chronicle'* Tuesday August 5, 12:14 pm ET WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- America needs tort reform, but not as much as it needs better judges, according to the head of Judicial Watch, the Washington, D.C.-based conservative legal group. ADVERTISEMENT "There needs to be tort reform, but not as currently proposed by this Congress and President Bush. That is just a gift to the medical profession," said Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch, appearing on this week's edition of "White House Chronicle," a PBS political talk show. He added: "What we need are better judges." Klayman sharply criticized federal judges, who are chosen because of the favors they have done for the president or a senator. "They are not the best and the brightest," he said, adding, "All the tools exist for judges to throw out frivolous lawsuits, and cut back on excessive damage awards. But we don't have judges who will stand on principle." Frankly, he said, "We have judges who are politicians in robes." Klayman said he was "bothered" by the lack of public interest in the judicial appointments issue. "In some states, [people] are very interested: California and Florida, my home state. In Florida, they're very interested in judges because they've seen the Florida Supreme Court go crazy over the years, as well as the other courts. But in other states, it is a secondary issue." Ironically, Klayman said, most Americans have had some experience with the legal system, whether it's a family law matter or a contract dispute. "They almost always walk away with a bad taste in their mouth," he said. "And that's the result of intellectually and actually corrupt lawyers and judges ... When people walk into a courtroom today, more often than not they'll find judges pontificating from the bench, carrying on, disparaging people." Klayman said those courtroom scenes, not President Clinton's exploits, led him to found Judicial Watch in 1984. "I started Judicial Watch not because of Bill Clinton, but because my own profession had gone very corrupt." Asked about the 15-lawyer group's biggest success, in terms of setting legal precedent or effecting public policy change, in last decade, Klayman said: "The biggest precedent that we set is that we, in effect, became a private Justice Department ... Whether it is a Democratic or Republican administration, we know that the Justice Department isn't going to bring cases against their own administration. So we have stepped into that void." Just look, he added, at Judicial Watch's seal and motto, "Because no one is above the law." As for Attorney Gen. John Ascroft's handling of the department, where he once worked as a trial lawyer, Klayman said: "I don't think, frankly, we conservatives had high hopes for John Ashcroft ... True conservatives, like true liberals, don't believe in violating peoples' civil liberties. ... And that is what we are seeing at the Justice Department with the Patriot Act." Klayman added that he is not necessarily in agreement with his Judicial Watch colleagues on the Patriot Act. "I think it's very dangerous." He went on to criticize Ashcroft's handling of Judicial Watch cases that have held over from the Clinton administration. "He has continued to prosecute them and pay the Clintons' legal fees, through the taxpayers. It's just mind-boggling to me that he couldn't settle those cases. Filegate, for example: 900 Republicans' files taken by the Clinton White House. Why not settle the case?" During the wide-ranging interview, with co-hosts Llewellyn King and Linda Gasparello, Klayman also discussed the lawsuit Judicial Watch brought against Vice President Cheney's energy advisory committee. "White House Chronicle" airs on WHUT-TV, Channel 32, Howard University Television, Washington, D.C., Thursdays at 10:30 p.m. and Sundays at 5:30 p.m. It is nationally available via the PBS satellite system Fridays from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. ET. It is also available on the GoodLife Television Network Sundays from 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. in areas served by STARPOWER. The show is produced in collaboration with Howard University Television. Sponsorship is provided by the Large Public Power Council [LPPC]. Source: White House Chronicle _______________________________________________________ _ *American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition * *Judge Tells Harvard Law School* By Geraldine Hawkins, March 7, 2003, 3-7-3 The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28. She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism. "The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students. "The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature dictated by God himself is binding in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones. She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance. "This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots. "The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own people are being killed." According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking-in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority. "Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so. "The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law," The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to win at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him. However, "An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?" Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice' Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of lawsuits, according to her. "We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court." Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for this kind of abuse. "Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination, second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous discrimination suits are filed creating an atmosphere in which many corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they simply cannot afford to vindicate their positions. "While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.'" Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates." The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in courts of justice?" Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it? "Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said. "Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage in a system they perceive as manipulatable." The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself. "Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse." Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which further delineate this problem. The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from contemporary legal philosophy. "Throughout my professional life, American legal education has been ruled by theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each of these theories has a lot to say about the 'is' of law, but none of them addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law." Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom" is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry." No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school classroom since those words were written." She maintained that now it is even worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down. "The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe." Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it: "The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality. The historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse." Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens." Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense. "Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said. "It is a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments." Natural law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom," Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses? The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students. "I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law, such as constitutional monarchy. "Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say anything." Potential Nominee to Supreme Court Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea. "Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated for federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you pay your nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?' "In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge? People who have accomplished nothing. In other words, federal employees." Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in Houston. The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were unhappy with the academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge Jones. The Federalist Society was created to be a forum for a wider range of legal viewpoints than they were hearing in the course of their studies. From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over 150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250 members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues. The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution and 3) it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it should be. ---------End-------------------------.I.L. News Journal _____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California March 4, 2003 State Supreme Court Justice Attempts To Flee Accident She Caused Cited for drunk driving and hit-and-run And she's addressed as "Your Honor"?? As you read the story below, ask yourself three questions: 1- What would happen to you or me if we were involved in a hit and run... and blew a 0.22 (three times the legal limit) on a breathalyzer test? 2- What do you think is gonna happen to this judge when she appears before another judge? 3- Regarding your answer to #2... is that one of the benefits of the Divine Right of Kings? *Wash. Justice Apologizes for Alleged DUI* By Associated Press ~ March 2, 2003, 7:28 PM EST SEATTLE -- State Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge apologized Sunday, two days after she was cited for drunken driving and hit and run for allegedly trying to drive away from the scene of an accident. Bridge, 58, called her behavior inexcusable and promised to seek a professional evaluation of her alcohol use. "There are not words to describe how deeply remorseful I am," she said. "I thank God no one was hurt." Bridge, 58, was arrested Friday night after another driver called to report that a silver Mercedes had struck an unoccupied pickup truck in Seattle, police spokesman Scott Moss said. The Mercedes allegedly continued driving until the witness pulled in front of it and boxed it in, the witness told police. Bridge took two breath tests, registering blood-alcohol levels of 0.219 percent and 0.227 percent -- nearly three times the state's legal limit of 0.08 percent. Gov. Gary Locke appointed Bridge to the court in 2000 to replace retiring Justice Barbara Durham. She was elected to a full six-year term after running unopposed last year. Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press ---------------------------------------End----------------------------------------- *Lawsuits strain ex-judge's credibility, A judicial candidate **touts her clean image after past troubles and removal from **the bench, but a new chorus of complaints surfaces. * By DAVID KARP, Times Staff Writer, St. Petersburg Times published July 10, 2002 TAMPA -- When Elizabeth "Betsey" Hapner announced that she would run for judge once again, the lawyer promised she had put her troubles behind her. Since the Florida Supreme Court removed her from the county bench in 1998, Hapner said, there had not been a single complaint about her legal work. Not one. She apparently wasn't counting Hal Silverman, who accused Hapner in March of legal malpractice, or Peter Croizat, who filed a complaint against her with the Florida Bar in May 2001, or Washington Mutual Financial Inc., one of two companies that have sued Hapner over what they say are unpaid bills. In another lawsuit, a Pinellas County judge found against Hapner in June for failing to make payments on a leased Jeep Cherokee. The complaints haven't jeopardized Hapner's law license nor her ability to run for the circuit bench against four other lawyers. The malpractice suit was dismissed. The Bar complaint was found insufficient. The lawsuit by Washington Financial is still pending. But the complaints do call into question her credibility. Hapner did not respond to several requests seeking comment for this article. But in an interview when she announced her candidacy last month, Hapner, 45, said she hadn't faced any complaints since her removal from the bench. She also said she had put her financial affairs in order. "It's ancient history," Hapner said. Her past troubles stem from statements she made after she was elected county judge in 1996. The Judicial Qualifications Commission, which polices Florida judges, accused Hapner of giving misleading testimony during a bitter divorce, and giving untruthful and inaccurate answers to an appeals court's request that she finish an overdue legal brief. The JQC also said Hapner neglected her clients while running for office -- a charge she still denies. In 1998, the Florida Supreme Court removed Hapner from office for a pattern of dishonest and irresponsible behavior, calling her unfit to be a judge. The court later suspended her law license for 90 days and placed her on probation for a year. Her probation ended this month. Hal Silverman, who sued Hapner for malpractice, had heard about Hapner's problems when he hired her as his divorce attorney. At first, Hapner appeared "very professional, very astute," he said. "I guess the reason I stuck with her was because she was a judge, and she knew the ins and outs of the law. You would assume that, wouldn't you?" But Silverman said Hapner would not respond to calls or e-mails for months. When the judge ruled against Silverman in his divorce, Hapner would not cooperate with a new lawyer hired to handle an appeal, Silverman said. Silverman's malpractice suit against Hapner claimed she failed to create an adequate record for an appeal and didn't hire a court reporter for a hearing. A Hillsborough judge recently dismissed Silverman's lawsuit, saying that a lawyer can't be sued for malpractice for failing to bring a court reporter to a hearing. Peter Croizat also hired Hapner as his divorce attorney. Like Silverman, Croizat said he had trouble reaching Hapner after he hired her in 2000. "Every time I would call her office, her paralegal would say, 'She is not available. She is in court,"' Croizat said. "It became very frustrating for me." In the midst of his divorce case last year, Croizat's ex-wife called: Hapner had been suspended from the Bar, she said. "She was gloating over that," Croizat said. "I didn't believe her." When he called Hapner's office, he said Hapner's assistant initially denied it. Then Croizat said he was told his case would be reassigned to another lawyer. "You have to be kidding me?" Croizat thought. "You are still trying to sell me on an attorney who has ethics violations? I said, 'I don't want her.' "Well, guess what," he said he was told. "You are stuck with her." Croizat fired Hapner, refused to pay an additional $1,400 bill, and filed a complaint with the Florida Bar. Croizat didn't follow up on the complaint, which the Bar dismissed for insufficient evidence. Some of Hapner's creditors haven't been pleased with her, either. World Omni Inc. sued Hapner in 2000 after the company said she kept a leased 1996 Jeep Cherokee after the lease expired and didn't make payments on it. Hapner wanted to buy the Jeep, but the sides couldn't agree on a price. The company said it repossessed the Jeep in February 2000, but Hapner has denied this in court documents. She said she turned the Jeep into the dealership. "If you report this ridiculous allegation to the credit bureaus or otherwise take action on this frivolous claim, I will sue your company for defamation and request attorney's fees and costs for the frivolous claim," Hapner wrote the company in February 2000. The leasing company sued, and a Pinellas County judge last month ordered Hapner to pay $1,209 for missed payments and late fees. Washington Mutual Financial Inc. sued Hapner in December 2001 for owing $9,415 on a loan she and her ex-husband obtained in 1993. The company said Hapner stopped making payments in January 1997. Hapner argued in court papers she had never done business with Washington Mutual. Court records show she signed a loan agreement with a company that later merged with Washington Mutual. "It's just a name game," said Michael Cooper, an attorney for Washington Mutual. "She doesn't want to pay or doesn't have the money." Hapner, a single mother raising a son, has acknowledged that her removal from the bench created financial strains. She said she owed her lawyers $200,000. In 1998, Huntington Mortgage Co. filed suit to foreclose on Hapner's home in Carrollwood. A circuit judge entered a $132,000 judgment against Hapner in April 2000, but the judgment was set aside after Hapner settled the case out of court. Property records show that Hapner and her mother still own the property. Even with these problems, Croizat, her former client, said he thinks voters might return Hapner to office. "The voting populace has a 5-minute memory span," he said. "She presents herself well. She will be an easy sell." ---------------------------------------End----------------------------------------- *Advocate and Activist Speaks on CPS, by Suzanne Shell* As an activist and advocate, I am faced with constant pleas for help  from My Fellow Americans who are suffering under the heavy hand of tyranny in our country. I am not the only one who is bombarded with these demands. There are many other like-minded souls who also make substantial personal sacrifices to forward a principle or a cause. Sadly, we get too few offers of help. Many of My Fellow American who have been victimized by cold-hearted government atrocities against their persons, their property or families, and their rights actually prefer to  criticize the nature and scope of services an activist or advocate might offer on their behalf. Not satisfied with exhibiting such astonishing gall, these Fellow Americans actually believe they hold the high moral ground by pointing out how inadequate the subject advocate might be while exonerating themselves of all responsibility for insuring their own liberty and security. Let?s examine the typical activist/advocate in the proper perspective. We, who dare to utter ugly truths about our chosen issue boldly in the gun sights of a heavy-handed, well-funded government who relishes destroying their critics by declaring them mentally ill or criminal and by seizing everything that is precious to them, we receive precious few rewards for our sacrifices. So why do we make them? Is it for the glory? Ha! What glory? Anyone who fantasizes about being the next Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandi or Paul Revere for their issue is in for a very ugly reality. The truly dedicated are way too busy to worry about their name on the evening news, and if they do make it, the issue takes precedence over the spotlight. The glory seekers are as substantial as a cold and mercenary fog which fades when the heat is turned on. Glory? There is no glory in being subjected to death threats, police surveillance, incarceration, physical violence, frivolous prosecutions, seizure of property, seizure of children, murders of loved ones or the other innumerable methods of government intimidation and force that are designed to shut us up. There is no glory in the constant struggle against critical allies and beneficiaries of our services who think they know more than we do.Yet we continue. . .why? Is it for the money? I say again, Ha! What money? Some of the most dedicated activists and advocates don?t get a dime for their efforts. Since donations are literally non-existent, they end up paying for their activism out of their own pockets. Since those funds are usually extremely limited, they rely most heavily on their own talents to get  their message out. Not only do they talk the talk, they walk the walk and put their own money where their mouth is because they believe so strongly in their cause. This often means they live without many amenities. They drive older cars, live in smaller homes, make do with what they?ve got and repair rather than replace. This is especially true for those activists who front politically incorrect issues. After all, who wants to support an issue that might make the donor look bad? Money? What money? Even I, who has books to sell, don?t make enough from those proceeds to cover my monthly expenses for advocacy and activism. Still, we continue. I ask again. . .why? Because, we have to. Because it is the right thing to do. Because we believe in helping our Fellow Americans who suffer wrongs. Because we understand what it takes to change the system and restore justice and are willing to do the dirty work. But it behooves us to examine whether our Fellow Americans deserve this help, especially when My Fellow Americans become critical because you were unable to resolve their problem when they didn?t pay you a cent for your services or even lift a finger on their own behalf. Especially when you did help them resolve their problem and they disappeared into the sunset with a sincere thank you but no future support for your efforts. Especially when you needed their help and it wasn?t forthcoming. Where are you, My Fellow Americans, when your advocate?s civil rights are being violated because she took a stand on your behalf and she needed money to take it to court to prevent it from happening again so she could continue the battle without this kind of harassment in the  future? Are you sitting in front of your big screen home theater watching Pay-per-view events while smoking your cigarettes and relishing a few beers? Where are you, My Fellow Americans, when your advocate?s electric or phone bill is about to be shut off or she is about to be evicted because she has worked without pay in order to fight this issue for you and your family? Are you shopping for your new car to replace your old one which was not even paid for yet? Where are you, My Fellow Americans, when your advocate spends weeks doing the research and interviewing the experts and devising the strategies that proved so successful in your case all at her own expense and helped you prevail and recover your life or property? Are you shuttling the kiddies to soccer and dance, or indulging in your own expensive hobby? Where are you, My Fellow Americans, when your advocate or activist needs large numbers of supporters to hold signs at demonstrations or rallies, or to sit in court as a court watcher, or to write letters or make phone calls, or to distribute and post flyers, or to help her help someone else just like you? Are you too busy bitching and pissing and moaning online about how you just can?t get the media or lawmakers to show any interest in your case or your issue? Where are you, My Fellow Americans, when your activist and advocate is available 24/7, without respite or vacation, and who must travel to your location at her own expense to help you with your case and you aren't there? Are you playing the lottery or bingo or gambling, and taking weekends indulge in boating or skiing? Where are you, My Fellow Americans, when your advocate suffers health problems or a toothache or illness and still devotes her time and energy to your issue at the expense of her health, sometimes to the point of death, because you demand that she address your case NOW? Are you on your annual holiday in the mountains or at Disneyworld enjoying the  fruits of your labor in leisure activities? Where are you, My Fellow Americans, when your activist or advocate faces frivolous prosecutions in retaliation for his activism, or is jailed for taking a stand on your case or your issue and he pleads for your monetary support to fight this battle or money for necessities in jail? Are you writing a check to save the whales or the forests or to support the United Way so you can prove you are a concerned citizen and besides, those are tax deductible contributions and contributing to your advocate isn?t? Where are you, My Fellow Americans, those of you who benefitted from the selfless efforts of your activist/advocate and won your case and got the government out of your life, your family restored, your property returned; and where are those of you who benefitted without even knowing because of the precedents set by this advocate which protected you from that incursion in the first place? Are you keeping a low profile to avoid being targeted again and severing all contact with that person,  without whom you might not have won, in order to protect yourself from future government incursions? Have you decided not to make contributions to this proven leader and fighter despite what she did for you? Or, in the rush of life and the joy of winning, did you simply forget that she  needed your financial support? Is it any wonder that your advocates and activists ever ponder whether or not they should even stay the course? It is exhausting to stand alone, day after day, and take the inevitable pounding, not only from  our foes, but from our allies and beneficiaries of our services. It becomes very tempting to let the demanding army of critics and moochers fend for themselves. It?s easy to rationalize that they deserve to be left on their own because they won?t even lift their littlest finger to help the activist/advocates when he or she needs it, much less take responsibility for participating in their own case. What if we weren?t here when they needed us? What if they had to do all the work for themselves? What if they had to take responsibility for their own security and their own rights, starting from scratch without the benefit of the knowledge and skills of their advocate? How many  would falter? How many would fail? How much worse would the government juggernaut become without meaningful and knowledgeable opposition? When we get right down to it. . .many activists and advocates have nothing left to lose. They?ve often made the ultimate sacrifice which renders them uniquely qualified for fronting their particular battle. By the same token, it is pretty darn easy to walk away from that battle and leave My Fellow Americans to the tender mercies of their government without a guide or a warrior who will sacrifice all in their behalf. These sacrifices cannot occur in a vacuum forever. It?s long past time to reevaluate your priorities. If you truly believe in what your advocate or activist is doing, sell your home theater or your sports car and send the proceeds to him or her. Cancel your premium cable channels, quit smoking, stop playing bingo and donate that money to your advocate. Is this a lot to ask? I guess it all depends on what your rights, your family, your property or your liberty are worth to you. If it?s not worth that much to you, why should it be worth more to your advocate or activist? Why should they continue to sacrifice on your behalf so you can enjoy the fruits of your labor? Are they any less entitled to the fruits of their labor simply because they choose to donate their efforts for the good of My Fellow Americans? It?s your choice, but. . . Don?t be surprised when the day comes that you need your advocate or activist and he or she will not be there for you. Especially if you have not been there for him or her. There may simply be nothing left for him or her to give, because he or she gave it all to My Fellow Americans and My Fellow Americans gave nothing back. Copyright 2003 Suzanne Shell - All Rights reserved. Permission to distribute granted as long as copyright notice is attached. -------------------------------------End---------------------------------- New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com *6 men targeting judge * By MICHELE McPHEE DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Tuesday, November 12th, 2002 A wealthy New York City contractor. A Park Ave. businessman. A high-profile investment banker. A former talent scout from California. A prominent New Jersey doctor. A Putnam County architect. They call themselves the Diamond Support Group and have one objective: to get Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond thrown off the bench. The six men say Diamond ruined them financially during their divorce cases - and then fingered them as possible stalkers who had sent a slew of threatening letters over three years. The NYPD closed a two-year investigation into the alleged threats after a criminal profiler told cops he believed Diamond wrote the letters herself. Now the six men, who have been cleared as suspects, want the state Commission on Judicial Conduct to investigate her. They say they're also considering filing a civil suit against Diamond - charging she slandered them. "We want to band together and get her off the bench, so she doesn't do it to someone else," said Neil Eversole, a former talent scout who now lives in California. "It has been heartening to speak to these other men, because people just don't believe a judge could do what Diamond did - accuse me of a crime, send detectives to my house and then bankrupt me. This judge has so much power to affect your life, she can destroy you - and she will." Diamond turned over a list of about 20 men to investigators shortly after the letters began arriving in 1999, saying the litigants were potential suspects with possible motives to write menacing phrases such as, "Die Bitch." Eversol said detectives came to his Sutton Place apartment numerous times during his divorce from a Manhattan bank executive. Architect Ralph Brill said he was photographed by detectives in Diamond's courtroom during his divorce case. Park Ave. businessman Tom Snowdon was followed by NYPD detectives for weeks during his high-profile divorce from fashion designer Cathy Hardwick. The others did not want their names used, fearing that going public could affect their appeals of Diamond's rulings. "Now that I have talked to a number of other people she accused, it's mind-boggling how apparently crazy she has been on the bench, and how long she has gotten away with it," Snowdon said. "We've all been terribly beaten up and abused by her," Brill said. "It's been high drama all the way through with her." They've written letters to Gerald Stern, the administrator of the commission, demanding an investigation into Diamond's actions. Stern refused to comment about a possible probe when contacted by the Daily News. Seeking others Brill also has filed a Freedom of Informa-tion request to get the names of other people on Diamond's list - so he can reach out to them to join a possible civil suit. Diamond was shadowed by security, primarily state court officers, for three years because of the series of threatening letters she reported receiving. Detectives from the threat assessment unit, part of the NYPD's elite Intelligence Division, tried to determine who was writing the hate mail. The leads turned up nothing, so investigators turned to Ray Pierce, an FBI profiler and retired NYPD detective. Last month, The News reported that Pierce had concluded the 61-year-old jurist was behind the threats. 'Pig in a poke' Cops have no hard evidence linking Diamond to the letters, and she has denied writing the bizarre rants, said her lawyer, former federal Judge Harold Tyler. Tyler also defended Diamond's list of suspects, dismissing the group's complaints and its threat of a civil suit as "a large pig in a poke." "The police said to Judge Diamond they wanted to get names of litigants so they could perhaps corroborate whether someone was guilty of sending the notes," Tyler said. "It is still legal for citizens to cooperate with the police." Tyler, who was hired by Diamond after The News' stories appeared, also scoffed at Pierce's findings. "The police have been investigating this for over three years, and there is nothing to this charge that she is writing notes to herself," he said. Tyler added that Diamond's security detail has ended. But that's not enough for one Manhattan lawyer, who also was questioned by investigators and is considering joining the Diamond Support Group. "She has destroyed lives," said the lawyer, who asked not to be named because he is embroiled in a custody battle in front of another Manhattan matrimonial judge. "Some of these guys will never make a comeback." ------------------------------------End--------------------- *Waco Fires Still Burn*, By Chuck Baldwin, February 28, 2003 Today marks the tenth anniversary of the illegal assault by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms on the home of the Branch Davidians living outside Waco, Texas. A shootout resulted with several deaths on both sides. Shortly afterward, the Federal Bureau of Investigation took over, and on April 19, 1993, agents from both departments (using military hardware and both U.S. and foreign military advisers) laid siege to the dwellings which resulted in the deaths of 87 American citizens. Many of the victims were old men, women, and small children. The events at Waco have contributed to the distrust and disdain of federal abuse of power like nothing since 1775. Moved by grassroots pressure, the Congress of the United States convened special hearings into the conduct of those federal agencies responsible. The result was less than satisfactory to many Americans. Federal agents lied under oath without any punitive repercussions. Evidence was conveniently lost. Videotapes of the events revealed deceit, duplicity, arrogance, and a thirst for blood on behalf of the federal agencies involved. At the end of the hearings, the questions remained unanswered and no one within the government was held accountable. Those Davidians that survived the raid were tried for murder. A jury found them innocent, but no charges were ever brought against any of the agents. Whatever one thinks of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, they had committed no capital crimes. Furthermore, it is unconscionable that tanks and other military equipment would be used against mostly women and children within our own country! The bizarre tactics employed by the ATF and FBI at Waco are unfathomable and unforgivable! Our government has been more lenient and patient when dealing with many of America's deadliest enemies that it was in dealing with those poor folks at Waco. There must never again be another Waco! God-given, constitutional liberties apply to every American. Under no circumstances must we allow federal agencies to circumvent the laws of our nation! The demands of liberty and justice rest upon us all. Certainly, Congress plays a part. Their investigation into Waco was inept, to say the least. The media also plays an important role. They have the power to inform; they also have the power to sedate. Absent a love for truth and justice by a lackadaisical media and a cowardly Congress, the fires of Waco still burn in the heart of the American conscience. Beyond that, we have recently watched as the Bush administration has burgeoned the power and scope of the federal government to proportions not seen since Lincoln invaded the South. We seem to be entering an era of unlimited and unbridled federal power and authority. Therefore, are more Wacos on America's horizon? It is incumbent upon each of us to seriously ponder our future. Furthermore, it is imperative that each of us is willing to study again the great principles upon which this nation was built. Those principles made us; those principles keep us. Without them, our future is about as permanent as the wooden buildings at Mt. Carmel. Without them, the fire of tyranny will reduce us to the cinders of obscurity. -------------------------------------End------------------------------ Santa Fe Police Arrest Attorney For Comments he Made In An Internet *Chat-Room, February 27, 2003, Information Clearing **House.* A St. John?s College Library visit by a former public defender was abruptly interrupted February 13 when city police officers arrested him about 9 p.m. at the computer terminal he was using, handcuffed him, and brought him to the Santa Fe, New Mexico, police station for questioning by Secret Service agents from Albuquerque. Andrew J. O?Conner, 40, who was released about five hours later, said in the February 16 Santa Fe New Mexican, ?I?m going to sue the Secret Service, Santa Fe Police, St. John?s, and everybody involved in this whole thing.? According to O?Connor, the agents accused him of making threatening remarks about President George W. Bush in an Internet chat room. Admitting he talked politics face-to-face in the library with a woman who was wearing a ?No war with Iraq? button, O?Connor recalled saying that Bush is ?out of control,? but that ?I?m allowed to say all that. There is this thing called freedom of speech.? He also speculated that the FBI might have been observing him because of his one-time involvement in a pro-Palestinian group in Boulder, Colorado. Earlier on the same day O?Connor was questioned, officials at St. John?s?as well as at the College of Santa Fe and Santa Fe Community College?issued warnings to students and faculty that the FBI had been alerted to the presence of ?suspicious? people on campus within the past four weeks. Concern about threats to individual privacy under the USA Patriot Act has prompted New Mexico legislators in both houses to propose resolutions urging state police not to help federal agents infringe on civil rights. The resolutions also encourage libraries to post prominent signage warning patrons that their library records are subject to federal scrutiny without their permission or knowledge. page created with Easy Designer