To: The Honorable Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. The Honorable Governor Mark Warner. The Honorable Judges of Fairfax County, Virginia. The Honorable Senators, Congressmen, Legislators, Children's rights organizations. Fairfax County Supervisors, Church Groups, Family rights activists, Residents of Fairfax County and Virginia.
We need your help and support.
Two innocent little children (Sveta "5 Years" and Lisa "3 years") have been the tiniest victims of these two attorneys manipulations the last two and a half years.
Friends of Little Sveta and Lisa would like to bring awareness and help end this abuse by Mr. Robert B. Machen and Ms. Janine M. Saxe ( guardian ad litem for the children).
Ms. Janine Saxe and Mr. Robert Machen are wasting Tens of Thousands of tax payer dollars undermining fit parents, misleading and abusing our court system, setting one parent against the other, false reporting to courts, state and federal agencies, separating and abusing the Jagannathan family while profiting unethically from their actions.
This is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated here in the U.S or anywhere else in the world. Little Sveta and Lisa have been subjected to suffering and their young minds abused and manipulated by the destructive actions of Ms. Janine Saxe and Mr. Robert Machen.
We demand Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen be held accountable, brought to justice, and punished. We demand an independent investigation.
We request wide dissemination of this material. Thank you for signing this petition.
Whereas, Ms. Janine M. Saxe and Mr. Robert B. Machen's malicious acts are an act of emotional and psychological terrorism against the little children, against parents and against a family;
Whereas, for Children and Parents there can be nothing in life experience more devastating than the abrupt, brutal, and unwarranted enforced separation due to the abusive and manipulative tactics of Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen;
Whereas, The parent-child bond is the strongest instinct, superseding all else and is protected by our constitutional rights;
Whereas, Ms. Saxe was made aware of Attorney Robert Machens' past record of malpractice including, falsifying documents and evidence;
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;
Whereas, Ms. 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;
Whereas, Ms. Janine Saxe failed to abide by the Virginia State Bar code when she violated Rule 8.4 Rules of Professional conduct (A Lawyer's obligation to report misconduct to disciplinary authorities is absolute, and is stronger than the policy against disclosing confidential material surrendered during discovery.
Therefore a Lawyer who suspects unethical conduct by another lawyer can include information uncovered during this litigation in an unsealed counterclaim, despite the protective order protecting the material);
Whereas, Attorney Mr. Machen repeatedly filed false papers and made false statements in court that were not supported by evidence, and Ms. Saxe as an attorney and officer of the court is duty bound by law to report such falsifications;
Whereas, white collar child and family abuse by Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen with no regard or thought to the emotional impact on two little Children (Sveta and Lisa) who have suffered endlessly by the actions of these two attorneys is a violation of the rights or parents guaranteed by the U.S Constitution and the Commonwealth of Virginia;
Whereas, Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen have abused and undermined the children's interests, the justice system at the expense of the taxpayers, and the Jagannathan's family assets for over two years with deceit and malpractice, while profiting from these abuses by asking for attorney fees and other expenses;
Whereas, to have a parent child bond abruptly severed by the malicious efforts of Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen giving no consideration to the fear, anxiety, and trauma their actions cause to two little children, is child abuse, a crime against humanity and should not be tolerated in the state of Virginia;
Whereas, Ms. Janine Saxe interests in being a guardian, of the children while advocating denial of visitation to the fit, educated and caring father of Sveta and Lisa;
Whereas, small children believe their parents to be all-powerful, like super heroes. They believe that their parents possess an all-powerful ability to shelter and protect them from any threat;
Whereas, Ms. Saxe and Mr. Machen coercion of a parent into submission under a false pretense and engineering the abduction of their children from all that is safe and familiar to them, a fundamental belief system within the child is broken forever, along with the child's ability to feel safe and secure in their world;
Whereas, Robert Machen attempts to file numerous injective relief, Protective orders in order to separate the parents and the children claiming a new set of abuse allegation each time;
Whereas, spurious child abuse charges maliciously filed with Child Protective Services (CPS) were dismissed as baseless by the CPS, yet Mr. Machen goes to court with a motion the very next week on child abuse and neglect charges;
Whereas, a fax document discovered as evidence of Robert Machens' devious actions in which he conspires to bring criminal false allegation to the FBI, Department of Justice, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to revoke the father of the children's green card in an effort to seize control of the children;
We deplore Ms. Janine M. Saxe and Mr. Robert B. Machen's relentless two and a half year effort at undermining the children's interests, promoting separation, bitterness, acrimony and divorce between the parents by playing one side against the other, filing false documents with Federal and State Agencies including the FBI, Department of Justice, Child Protective Services, Police, The former Immigration and Naturalization Service. NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED that the rights of parent and children to have frequent and continuing contact is a fundamental, joint right of the parent and child with a basis in constitutional case law, which has held that the rights to raise, have access to, and care for one's own children are "more precious than property rights," are "essential"; and that the right to be with one's children is a" natural" right with a higher moral claim than any economic right.
BE IT RESOLVED that the U.S Supreme court has stated consistently as that of parental rights. Ie: In 1923 the Court asserted that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and to "control the education of their own." Meyer v. Nebraska. 262 U.S 390, 399, 401, (1923). On June 5, 2000, the Supreme Court declared that
It cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. Troxel v. Granville ( 530 U.S 2000)
BE IT RESOLVED that Fundamental Constitutional rights are accorded a special status in judicial review. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
BE IT RESOLVED that the actions of Ms. Janine Saxe and Mr. Robert Machen are a infringement of parental rights guaranteed under our constitution. Such acts of deprivation must occur only when there is a compelling state interest served by interfering with these rights and there is no more constitutionally benign way to achieve this compelling state interest.
BE IT RESOLVED that there has never been any evidence presented that, the retention of parental rights by both parents would compromise a compelling state interest.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that We assert and affirm our rights under the constitution to protect and defend our children from the likes of Janine M. Saxe and Robert B. Machen.
Thank you for taking the time to read and sign this petition.
Friends of Sveta and Lisa
Walter Johnson
Email: wjohnsonva@lycos.com
Fairfax judge’s performance questioned
January 19th, 2009 · 4 Comments · General Assembly, Judicial Elections
The Northern Virginia delegation to the General Assembly wants to take a second look at Fairfax Circuit Judge Gaylord L. Finch Jr., who is up for reappointment for an eight-year term.
Last Thursday, the House and Senate Courts of Justice Committees certified to the legislature all other incumbent judges seeking reappointment. The General Assembly is scheduled to act on them Thursday.
The delegation asked for Finch’s name to be pulled so that it can give further consideration to complaints about his performance.
Del. David B. Albo, the Fairfax Republican who chairs the house courts committee, said much of the criticism has come from domestic relations litigants who disagreed with Finch’s decisions.
Albo said he has been told that Finch often rules from the bench without explaining the reasons for his decision, and the loser is left with the impression that he or she hasn’t been heard.
Other county residents complained about Finch’s handling of litigation over a change in school-district boundaries.
Two other incumbents, Chesterfield Circuit Judge Timothy J. Hauler and Jacqueline G. Waymack, a J&DR judge who sits in the district that includes Hopewell and Prince George County, were certified but not before a separate votes were taken on them at the request of a committee member. As we reported earlier here and in the VLW’s Dec. 22 edition, both judges were the subject of lengthy hearings before the courts committees.
By Alan Cooper
Judge Finch is a very courteous and considerate judge who in my experience has done an excellent job on the bench. Having been a member of the Virginia State for 30 years and active in the Fairfax Bar Association, I think I have the capability to recognize a good judge when I see one. I am disappointed that any members of the General Assembly would even question his recertification. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Tom Folk
2 Wesley Smith // Jan 21, 2009 at 11:02 am
Delegate Albo is right that there is room to debate Judge Finch’s subjective rulings
where he has to make a judgment call, but when it comes to Constitutionally mandated
procedural requirements, Judge Finch either followed them or he didn’t. In my criminal
trial when he denied me my Constitutional Rights to call witnesses, present evidence,
impeach witnesses, etc, that’s not a judgment call, that is a gross violation of the
Supreme Law of the land. Either Judge Finch is totally incompetent or Judge Finch
intentionally abused his power. Either way he should be removed.
Judged Finch denied me the basics of a fair trial as defined in our constitution. He
accepted the case even though he already had a bias against me due to public comments I
posted about him on my website, refused to recuse himself as required by judicial ethics,
refused to rule on my motion to dismiss, refused to enforce my witness subpoenas, refused
to let me present evidence including an audio recording of the incident to the jury, and
refused to answer a question submitted by the jury during deliberations.
One could argue his decision if he had ruled against my motion to dismiss, but refusing
to rule at all is simply refusing to perform the duties for which his is paid. He said he
didn’t have time to make a ruling, yet he had time, even after an objection was made to
relevance, to let witnesses go on and on about my website which could have no merit in a
trespassing case. Yet he didn’t have time for me to present all the photos and maps I
brought that showed I had left the property. It appeared he wanted to make it clear why
he was denying me a fair trail.
You can read more about the case, including the motions file, audio recordings and
transcripts that were not allowed, on my website:
http://www.liamsdad.org/court_case/trespassing/trespassing.shtml
http://www.liamsdad.org/hall_of_shame/gay_finch.shtml
3 Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. // Jan 22, 2009 at 10:10 am
Presentation made on January 10, 2009, to members of the General Assembly from N. Va. at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ
RE: STOP THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS BY THE COURTS OF VIRGINIA.
As I have previously written, irrespective of you being either a Democrat, Republican, or an Independent, you must as members of the General Assembly restore the Rule of Law, the integrity, and public confidence in the Courts of Virginia.
Thus, you must vigorously act on my Petition for Investigation and Impeachment of the Judicial Branch and the Office of Attorney General, for violating statutory mandates under both Treaty and VA UCCJEA to obstruct the rights of parents, and violating Va. Code § 54.1-3935, to establish an unauthorized attorney disciplinary system within the Virginia State Bar so to restrict the independence of attorneys in service to the public.
The Virginia Tort Claim Act is unenforceable because the courts now have declared “absolute judicial and ministerial immunity” for criminal and tortious acts outside of jurisdiction or official capacity.
The citizen can no longer easily hold government officials accountable for malfeasance.
Therefore, for the good of the future of our Commonwealth the General Assembly must not permit the ongoing usurping of the power granted only to it.
For the above reasons, I respectfully request that your staffs meet with me to discuss the issues in the attach Petition for Investigation and Impeachment.
4 Gail Lakritz // Feb 14, 2009 at 5:26 am
All judges in Virginia J&DR and Circuit Courts need to have their Courts examined and their rulings questioned.
When judges can assign public tax dollars and the use of pro bono lawyers for individuals with $300,000 in the bank, and than seal the records so that the proof of such acts are withheld from the public, there is a problem. These are High Crimes and Misdemeanors, whereby judges regularly apply the public funds to aid wealthy individuals, and than seal the records of the misappropration. Investigate the rulings in James City County and unseal the records sealed by the judges there.
The maladmistration of high office is practiced in many courts within the Commonwealth, and the House and Senate Courts of Justice Committees is well aware of the practice. They prefer to allow the continuance for their own gain. They need the backing of their respective political machines to continue in office. When presentation of testimony of wrongdoing is presented, Justice Committee members leave the hearing rooms. What they do not hear and see does not exist. There is no viable avenue for consideration of complaints. The JIRC is designed to be the “black hole” for evidence.
Mr. Albo has been informed by many people of such practices as using public funds to aid the wealthy, not allowing for presentation of evidence and backroom deals.
The Virginia State Bar and all local Bar Associations are self-policing. They are a governments unto themselves. Until there is public oversight of these brotherhoods and investigations into judges who are lawyers first, the public will continue to be raped by these individuals and their organizations.
If you want the proof of local misapproations of public funds, I have it.
Is Alan Sagar a nutty Psychiatrist?
Elizabeth Harring's objections to Judge Gaylord Finch's reappointment
No comments:
Post a Comment