Judge Janine Saxe is an unfit judge and must be voted out.

NEVER SHUT UP, GIVE UP OR GO AWAY

Judge Janine Saxe is an unfit judge and must be voted out. Janine M. Saxe ( The address or email is non-working after she became a pro tempore appointee 19th Judicial District, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (Fairfax, Fairfax County) Law Offices of Janine M. Saxe 4118 Leonard Drive, 2nd Floor Fairfax, VA 22030 e-mail: janinesaxe@janinesaxeattorney.com (703) 691-3201 (phone) 10201 Jaydee Blvd, Fairfax Station VA 22039 PHONE: 703 250-3346 VSB: 23407 Judge Janine Saxe while she was a Lawyer and a Guardian ad Litem for two little children...supported an Lawyer named Robert Machen who was abusing these children via the court system. That Lawyer was a buddy of Janine Saxe...so she refused to file a complaint to the Bar Association against the Lawyer even though, She is required to do so. she was assigned by the courts to protect the children's interests not her lawyer buddy's interest. see petition against Janine Saxe and Robert Machen here. Janine Saxe was made aware of Rule 3.4 of the Virginia State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.

A Lawyer shall not Falsify Evidence. Counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely;

1. Ms. Saxe was made aware of Attorney Robert Machens' past record of malpractice including, falsifying documents and evidence for which he received 3 felony convictions and a 1 year prison sentence in a federal prison.



2. Whereas, The Virginia State Bar had disciplined Mr. Machen, reprimanding him twice and suspending his license for falsifying documents. He has had district committee sanctions leveled against him.
   
   
   
   
   Three Judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Honorable Judge Thomas D. Thorne, Judge Dickson L. Foster, Judge Robert K. Woltz had found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Machen engaged in conduct for personal advantage, involving deceit that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law and found him guilty under DR1-102(A)(4) of code of professional responsibility.
   
   
   
   The Organization - Citizen for Legal Reform reports Mr. Machen has engaged in conduct which tends to undermine the administration of justice and to bring legal businesses into disrepute;



3. See Walter Johnson's petition against Janine Saxe and Robert Machen that helped the kids. http://www.liamsdad.org/others/sveta_lisa.shtml




4. And guess the Judge, Janine Saxe and Robert Machen were using as the Court Hanger...Yes if You guessed Judge Gaylord Finch...You are absolutely right. Birds of the same feather flock together..don't they.
5. 
   
   

   A vigorous but clumsily argued expose of the corrupt family-court practices that have turned divorce into a $50 billion-a-year industry.

   Justin Chang

   Chief Film Critic@JustinCChang
   Neither divorce nor marriage seems a particularly enticing prospect after a viewing of “Divorce Corp.,” a vigorous but clumsily argued expose of the corrupt family-court practices that have turned one of life’s more painful experiences into a $50 billion-a-year industry. Chock-full of slick graphics, smart talking heads, one-sided emotional appeals and flailing accusations of judicial misconduct, Joe Sorge’s documentary has a depressingly relatable subject that could garner homevid interest following brief theatrical play, even if its primary thesis — that lawyers promote their own interests, not those of the warring spouses they represent — isn’t exactly the stuff of shattering revelation.

   Fifty percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, the film announces at the outset, followed by reams of data showing how marriage termination rates have skyrocketed ever since Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, signed the first U.S. no-fault divorce bill in 1969, making it easier than ever for couples to file for divorce, but not necessarily to complete the process. As explained by narrator Drew Pinsky (aka Dr. Drew), it’s a situation that has since been exploited by attorneys by piling on the paperwork and encouraging their clients to be as combative and unyielding as possible, knowing that a protracted court battle is the surest way to maximize billings. “People get as much justice as they can afford,” notes one observer early on.

   Attorneys, however, aren’t even the ones who come off the worst in “Divorce Corp.” Along with co-writers Philip Sternberg, James Scurlock and Blake Harjes, Sorge depicts the family court itself as an untrustworthy, user-unfriendly system of so-called justice. Here, they claim, divorcing couples are placed at the mercy of judges who are frequently irresponsible in their judgment; intolerant of those who attempt to navigate the courts without counsel (there are no court-appointed attorneys); and prejudiced in favor of lawyers who ply them with campaign contributions. The result is a court that acts not just as mediator but marketeer, conspiring to drag out the process and drain claimants’ assets in order to pay legal fees that will then, after a fashion, wind up in the judges’ pockets.

   Even if that sounds a touch conspiratorial, it’s not all that hard to believe the idea of an accountability-free system rigged to make the proceedings as sticky and expensive as possible. That so many of the film’s interview subjects are family-court officers themselves (among them celebrity attorney Gloria Allred and “Divorce Court” judge Lynn Toler) lends a certain credence to their sharp if repetitive arguments, and it’s easy enough to follow the documentary’s logic as it rails against the horrors of everything from false domestic-violence accusations to excessively high alimony and child support payments. Child custody battles, of course, take divorce to new levels of messiness and hostility, especially given the wildly inconsistent judicial standards for what is in “the best interests of the child.”

   “Divorce Corp.” is reasonably cogent when it comes to explaining divorce-court terminology and statistics, even if it comes up somewhat short in terms of actual facts and figures. The filmmakers are far less successful when they start dragging in outrageous examples of official misconduct, whether it’s a child-custody evaluator who was publicly shamed for posting explicit online photos of himself in gay fetish gear, or a judge caught abusing his own child on video. Far from spinning these isolated incidents into a persuasive argument, the film instead seems as sleazy and opportunistic as its designated villains. Even the firsthand accounts from divorced parents, giving teary-eyed testimony about having lost custody of their kids to their rotten ex-spouses, prompt a skeptical response, given that the film is essentially re-trying their cases in the court of viewer opinion.

   By way of positive contrast, the filmmakers frequently interview divorcees and legal officials from Scandinavia, where the end of a marriage is an altogether more peaceful, reasonable and economical affair; not since Michael Moore’s “Sicko” extolled the virtues of French health care has a documentary tried so hard to stir American envy at the superior European way of doing things. It’s a point that inadvertently cuts to the core of what’s wrong with “Divorce Corp.,” which encourages a strictly practical-minded, unexamined fantasy about a world where a union can be ended as quickly, cheaply and conveniently as possible. No one would argue that an expensive, acrimonious divorce is a good thing, and yet the inverse has its perils, too, in a society that takes its most important institution far too lightly; it’s hard to swallow complaints about the incredible hassle and expense of divorce from a film that hasn’t begun to grasp the value of marriage to begin with.
   
   
   
   Forum Support and discussion forum: Re: Bethany House Virginia - A one stop divorce shop
   Search: Back to Support and discussion forum
   
   ReplyForward 4: Re: Bethany House Virginia - A one stop divorce shop (response to 3)
   Posted by kardon 1 on 05/26/04 11:27 AM
   Found two additional postings on Bethany House Virginia.
   This one seems to be a interesting shelter.
   
   repost: Bethany House of Northern Virginia allegat
   Posted By: bm4416
   Date: Thursday, 20 May 2004, at 9:47 p.m.
   
   
   Abuse allegations involving Bethany House Social workers.
   
   Want the Complete Picture? If you have read or heard stories about Sexual and emotional abuse at Bethany House of Northern Virginia, the shelter or its management or associates involved in a abuse scandal, or a story about Bethany House being a divorce shop, and want to be sure you know the complete story, check out "For the record" on the website at the following url. You might be surprised what you learn when all the information is available.
   
   Sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse is unconscionable and inexcusable, and even one case is too many, That said, the number of such cases at Bethany House should be put into context. The allegations cover over a period of 8 years and include any allegations, regardless of merit or credibility. More than 500 social workers, associates, volunteers have served the Bethany House since 1980, and allegations have been reported less than a hand full of times, of these most of them have been unsubstantiated. The one incident where a resident committed suicide was not due to sexual abuse, although she was a client of attorney Robert Machen going through a bitter divorce, She did not report sexual abuse. No one suspected any abuse in that particular case. The rate of abuse reported is in line with the incidence rate among society in general. >>>>>
   
   Despite the transgressions of a few, however, the overwhelming majority of social workers, and associates have faithfully served residents and lived a life of dedicated service to the shelter and have earned and deserve the support of the community.
   
   Ms. Veronica and Ms. Liang were let go as house managers because of misconduct, misappropriation of Bethany House funds and complaints of inappropriate sexual advances against the shelter residents. Hence they have a motive and a axe to grind against Bethany House.
   
   Mr. Machen was told not to approach the shelter or to solicit business with the shelter after several residents complained about his sexual advances against shelter residents. The shelter does not seek his pro bono services anymore.
   
   The reports published about Bethany House in some obscure publications by Mr. aBrahms is the first of its kind. Unfortunately, several copy cat publications at Men's rights website have exaggerated the report and published them with widely protracted allegations in print and on several websites.
   
   Our records do indicate allegations of abuse against social workers and volunteers who served the Bethany House since 1980. These were investigated screened out or suspended. Although we cannot be sure what parameters the reporter used in determining his number, or from what sources, it is our understanding that he included any allegation brought to his attention against any social worker, volunteer, or attorney including those from outside the Bethany House, regardless of where the alleged incident occurred and including allegations other than sexual abuse. The Bethany House does not employ attorney Robert Machen and hence we are not directly responsible for any allegations brought against him with any law enforcement agencies. We do not seek his services and neither is he directly associated with us. Since the reported allegations we have completely disassociated with his law firm and do not recommend any Bethany House clients.
   
   It would be inappropriate to speculate. However, we have asked the house manager of each of our shelter to encourage any witnesses or victims to bring any allegations of abuse to the Bethany House management's attention.
   
   The safety and welfare of residents and their families remain first and foremost in the Bethany House policy on sexual, psychological or emotional abuse. To the best of our knowledge, no one against whom there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing - no matter when it may have occurred - is currently in active ministry at Bethany House. However, we urge residents to continue to come forward if they have been harmed or if they suspect questionable behavior from any social worker or Bethany House staff or volunteer; they may freely inform the law enforcement or contact the Bethany House office in confidence at 703-998-8811.
   
   BHNV
   
   Bethany House Virginia - A one stop divorce shop
   
   
   Pa. Judge Guilty of Racketeering in Kickback Case
   By MICHAEL RUBINKAM Associated Press
   SCRANTON, Pa. February 18, 2011 (AP)
   
   A former juvenile court judge who sent large numbers of children to detention centers was convicted Friday of racketeering for taking a $1 million kickback from the builder of the for-profit lockups, in what prosecutors said was a "kids for cash" scheme that ranks among the biggest courtroom frauds in U.S. history.
   
   Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella, 61, left the bench in disgrace two years ago after he and a second judge, Michael Conahan, were accused of using juvenile delinquents as pawns in a plot to get rich. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed 4,000 juvenile convictions issued by Ciavarella, saying he sentenced young offenders without regard for their constitutional rights.
   
   Federal prosecutors accused Ciavarella and Conahan of taking more than $2 million in bribes from the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centers and extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the facilities' co-owner.
   
   A federal jury in Scranton convicted Ciavarella of 12 counts, including racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy, but acquitted him of 27 counts, including extortion. He is likely to get a prison sentence of more than 12 years, according to prosecutors — who revealed after the verdicts that a reputed mob boss turned informant helped them make their case.
   
   Ciavarella insisted the payments were legal and denied that he incarcerated youths for money — a position he defiantly clung to even after he was convicted of a charge, racketeering, that federal prosecutors often use to go after mobsters.
   
   "Never took a dime to send a kid anywhere. If that was the case, that would have been in this trial. Never happened. Never, ever happened. This case was about extortions and kickbacks, not about 'kids for cash,'" said Ciavarella, who plans to appeal.
   
   He was allowed to remain free pending sentencing, a decision that galled parents of juveniles who appeared before the judge. Ciavarella often ordered youths he had found delinquent to be immediately shackled, handcuffed and taken away without giving them a chance to say goodbye to their families. Some of the children he ordered locked up were as young as 10.
   
   The mother of a former defendant who was jailed by Ciavarella — and who later killed himself — confronted the judge on the courthouse steps, screaming obscenities and even poking him as he and his attorneys held a news conference.
   
   "My kid's not here anymore!" yelled Sandy Fonzo, whose son committed suicide last year at age 23. "He's dead! Because of him! He ruined my ... life! I'd like him to go to hell and rot there forever!"
   
   Ciavarella glanced at Fonzo, then turned his back.
   
   Fonzo's son, Edward Kenzakowski, was a 17-year-old all-star wrestler with no prior record when he landed in Ciavarella's courtroom for possession of drug paraphernalia. She said her son never recovered from the months he served at the detention centers and a wilderness camp.
   
   Tears streaming down her face, Fonzo said she couldn't believe Ciavarella was allowed to walk out of the courthouse.
   
   "There's no justice, there's not. He's never going to get what he deserves," she said. "I just wanted to see him handcuffed and taken out. But when I saw him just being released with that stupid smirk on his face ..."
   
   The jury found Ciavarella guilty of taking a $997,600 kickback from Robert Mericle, the builder of the juvenile facilities — money he was ordered to forfeit to the federal government after the verdicts were announced. He was also convicted of failing to report the payments on his state-mandated financial disclosure forms and failing to pay taxes on the income. Jurors acquitted him of extorting Robert Powell, the facilities' developer and co-owner.
   
   The defense declared victory. "We're amazed. The jury rejected 95 percent of the government's case," said attorney Al Flora.
   
   "I find it interesting," U.S. Attorney Peter Smith said in response, "that a man just convicted of racketeering is claiming any sort of a victory out there today. I wonder what he would consider a defeat."
   
   Prosecutors alleged that Conahan, who pleaded guilty to racketeering last year, and Ciavarella plotted to shut down the dilapidated county-run juvenile detention center in 2002 and arrange for the construction of the PA Child Care facility outside Wilkes-Barre.
   
   Ciavarella, who presided over juvenile court, sent youths to the center and later to its sister facility in western Pennsylvania while he was taking payments from Mericle, a prominent builder and close friend of Ciavarella, and Powell, a high-powered attorney.
   
   Luzerne County paid Powell's company more than $30 million between 2003 and 2007 to house juveniles at PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care. The county could have built its own juvenile center for about $9 million, according to testimony.
   
   In dismissing thousands of Ciavarella's convictions, the state high court said he ran his courtroom with "complete disregard for the constitutional rights of the juveniles," including the right to legal counsel and the right to intelligently enter a plea.
   
   Hundreds of youths and their families are suing Ciavarella and Conahan in federal court, but Smith said the judges' handling of juvenile cases did not figure into the federal prosecution for legal and evidentiary reasons.
   
   "We're very sympathetic to the pain to the community that was caused here by the conduct of the defendant as a juvenile court judge, and we're fully aware of the deep anguish that many parents and many juveniles feel. But the federal criminal courts are not the appropriate venue to resolve that issue fully," he said.
   
   Ciavarella, who took the stand in his own defense, acknowledged to jurors that he failed to report the payments on his tax returns and hid them from the public, but he denied any plot to take kickbacks or extort money.
   
   Ciavarella told jurors that he thought he was legally entitled to Mericle's money, calling it a "finder's fee" for introducing Mericle to Powell.
   
   Ciavarella also denied that he extorted Powell, who had testified for the prosecution that he was forced to pay the judges nearly $600,000 after they agreed to send juvenile delinquents to his new lockup. The payments were disguised as rent on a Florida condominium owned by the judges' wives.
   
   It was Conahan who made the arrangements with Powell, Ciavarella insisted. He said Conahan told him that Powell had agreed to pay them $15,000 a month for 60 months to lease the waterfront Florida property. Prosecutors scoffed at that explanation, questioning why Powell would pay nearly $1 million in rent on a condo he could have purchased outright for less than $800,000.
   
   Officials disclosed for the first time Friday that they were led to the judges by the reputed boss of a northeastern Pennsylvania Mafia family. William D'Elia — who regularly met for breakfast with Conahan — became a government informant after his 2006 arrest on charges of witness tampering and conspiracy to launder drug money.
   
   "D'Elia led us to Judge Conahan," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Zubrod. "From there we began to focus on them, the financial dealings between Judge Conahan, Judge Ciavarella, Mericle, Powell."
   
   D'Elia won a sentence reduction last year based on his cooperation in another criminal case and could be released as early as next year.
   
   Ciavarella and Conahan initially pleaded guilty in February 2009 to honest services fraud and tax evasion in a deal that called for a sentence of more than seven years in prison. But their plea deals were rejected by Senior U.S. District Judge Edward M. Kosik, who ruled they had failed to accept responsibility for their actions.
   
   A federal grand jury in Harrisburg subsequently indicted the judges on charges of racketeering, fraud, money laundering, bribery, extortion and tax offenses. Conahan pleaded guilty to a single racketeering charge last year and awaits sentencing. Mericle and Powell pleaded guilty to lesser offenses and testified against Ciavarella; both await sentencing.
   
   Ciavarella faces a maximum of 157 years in prison at sentencing, but will more likely receive 12½ years to about 15½ years under federal sentencing guidelines, prosecutors said.
   
   PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care remain open and continue to accept juveniles from many Pennsylvania counties, though Luzerne County no longer sends delinquents to them.
   
   http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=12951538&page=3
   
   
   Elizabeth Harring's objections to Judge Gaylord Finch's reappointment

6. Family Court – A Brilliant Racket
    Janine Saxe is a racketeer for the Bar Association when she was the Bar president: Guess who nominated her for a JDR Judge...The Racketeers electing the racketeering lawyers.

7. 
   

   
   Contact: groberts@fclu.org

   
   

    
   Family court is the one safe haven available to families who seek to solve their differences during one of the most vulnerable and sensitive times in their lives.  By contrast, family  court is also the one place that has been engineered by lawyers and lawmakers to deliberately and deceptively defraud families of their life savings, college funds, homes and sometimes even their relationships with their children.  By creating legislation that benefits the family law profession, lawmakers have engineered a brilliant system of racketeering, corruption, fraud and collusion that exploits and extorts families every day in every state in the nation.

   By using a well  honed, scripted formula of deliberate false allegations, lawyers create conflict between family members as well as between families and the court system for an almost continuous cash flow.  For instance, a Domestic Violence complaint is often the first step lawyers recommend their client’s use to get a spouse permanently removed from his or her home.  Law dictates that one phone call without proof is all  that is necessary.  Studies show that this initial trick is used every 32 seconds in America.  Next come allegations of drug or alcohol abuse, mental instability, child molestation or a host of other accusations that all have “Experts” ready to analyze the victim(s) for a handsome fee.  Each allegation then receives a legally binding court order from the Judge to be examined by the “Experts” all of whom are in fact friends of the family court system and the Judges.  The Judge removes children from the accused parent as standard practice which assures parental compliance and gets the cash to flow.

   Over the course of the next four to 20 months it takes the experts to work through the issues, the children are emotionally victimized while the parents are defrauded of huge sums of money.  Often the accused parent realizes what is happening but their legal counsel tells them to be quiet or the Judge will punish them.  The other parent believes in the system because they are on the offensive and have been sold on the idea by their legal counsel that it’s a winning strategy.  It is this psychological warfare that makes the system so potentially dangerous for families yet so lucrative for the legal system.  And the collusion amongst the industry players creates a bond of mutual cooperation and enviable hourly billing

   The family court system turns what could be a 30-day divorce into multiple years of legal abuse, exploitation, extortion and fraud.  Once in the family court system, people become entrapped.  This is so routine that there are literally tens of thousands of cases to prove this system is well used, well-engineered and quasi-legalized by the very lawyers and Judges that control the system.  Divorce has become $100 Billion business with lawyers routinely making $300k – $1M per year – many times coming from straight from children’s college funds and parent’s retirement funds.  Studies show that 120,000 families are bankrupted each year when thrown into the divorce court system. When parents emerge from the system, many have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

   Family Court – perceived as a safe haven for divorcing families.  Family Court – a system of well-engineered racketeering, extortion and fraud aimed at families at their most vulnerable time.  Even the honest lawyers are banned from speaking out against the judiciary under penalty of being disbarred.  It’s an absolutely brilliant system of organized crime cloaked as a benign, helpful government necessity yet designed by some of the best and brightest minds in the country and made legal by them.  The facts can not be disputed.  The damages provable.

8. Ms. Urbana of Washington D.C. related to Janine Saxe....Hard to believe.
9. 
   
   5 Children Stolen by CPS in Virginia
   
   
   Abusive Fairfax Judge Langhorne Keith removed by concerned parents...No thanks to the Fairfax Bar association
   
   Finch Flap before Virginia General Assembly - Gaylord Finch - Goodby corrupt Judge

Harvard Professor explains how the Lesters have subverted Democracy

Senator,

So far this session, there have been two significant events.  First, the Courts of Justice Committees decided to reconsider the reappointment of Judge Gaylord Finch because of his misdeeds.  Then, Chief Justice Hassell threatened the same committee with possible legal action if they disclosed the results of this year’s Judicial Performance Evaluations.  These events highlight two facts:

1. We have some bad judges, and
2. The judiciary would rather hide that fact than gets its own house in order.

Last year, Judge Chuck Griffith was removed from the Norfolk Circuit Court and the year before that Delegate Ken Melvin unsuccessfully attempted to remove Judge Sword from the Portsmouth Circuit Court.  While some people said these situations were political, they are further evidence that we have bad judges and it’s difficult to remove them. 

The real problem, though, is that these judges are not the exception.  All over the Commonwealth, many judges routinely ignore the law, ignore the evidence and trample on the rights of litigants.  Some of the worst offenders are (according to http://vacriminaljustice.webs.com/judgesratings.htm) Judge Paul Gluckowski , Manassas;  Retired Judge Alfred Swersky, Prince William County; Judge Christopher Hutton, 8th Judicial Circuit;  Judge William Sharp, City Of Winchester; Judge Elizabeth Kellas, Winchester; Judge William Sharp, Warren County; Judge Randall Smith, Chesapeake Circuit, Judge Gary A. Hicks, Henrico Circuit Court; Judge Janice Brice, Prince William County JDR; Judge Charles Lincon, Marion; and (according to Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney Harvey Bryant) the entire Virginia Beach Circuit.

Last year Chief Justice Hassell commented about the “challenges” they face in improving “…the quality of justice…” they provide. He noted that the judges were “fallible”, but his actions show that the judiciary is either incapable or unwilling to fix its problems. 

The JIRC ignores valid complaints.  The Court of Appeals rubber stamps bad decisions by saying they can’t become the “tryer of fact.”  They use “judicial discretion” as the excuse to justify biased decisions.

To fix this problem WE NEED HOUSE BILL 2526 (Judicial performance evaluation program; Survey & Evaluation Research Laboratory, etc. administer.).  It provides 2 of the 3 elements necessary to improve the current system.

1. Judicial performance evaluations will be done by an independent entity so their release can’t be blocked as they were this year.
2. The results will be reported to the GA yearly on all judges rather than just during a judge’s reappointment year.  A bad judge can destroy many lives and cost the Commonwealth billions in 8 years. 
3. The evaluations will include input from the litigants since most cases don’t have attorneys, juries or social services involvement.

There is no other entity in the country--not even the President--that has no oversight and no accountability to anyone outside itself.  This uncontrolled judiciary is one of the biggest problems facing Virginia.  "Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and that's where our courts are now.  It’s time to restore “checks and balances.”