Top Stories for 07/30/06

1. I see marriage continues to be a religious event for Pammy,wearing a string bikini at her wedding -how special!she should be more concerned about her HepC status with her new mate instead of the beauty of the tropics

Posted at 11:53AM on Jul 30th 2006 by j.kemp

2. Hey Kid, be sure and wrap that rascal...Hepatitis C can be transmitted via intercourse....

Posted at 11:56AM on Jul 30th 2006 by ExitOnly

3. Hollywood Divorce Lawyer's Love to hear of this type of marriage.

Posted at 12:05PM on Jul 30th 2006 by Julie

4. Well I see he's wearing his wife beater he's dressed appropriately, what dose he want with that putrid piece of garbage anyway, who In their right mind would touch something that Tommy Lee has had. Yuch !!!

Posted at 12:13PM on Jul 30th 2006 by Billy Pend

5. I am so bummed out that he married her.

Posted at 12:14PM on Jul 30th 2006 by Sherbell

6. Isn't that the same bikini she wore when she married Tommy on the beach in Cancun?

Posted at 12:17PM on Jul 30th 2006 by PC

7. I thought the same thing about the bikini, she wore one when she married Tommy, couldnt she at least do it in a serious mode this time? Is Vegas doing the odds yet for how long this will last?

Posted at 12:23PM on Jul 30th 2006 by toni

8. Kid Rock is proof ugly guys can get the girl if they're in a band.
A successful band.

Pamela Anderson is proof girls, even good mommy girls, just want to have fun.

Posted at 1:04PM on Jul 30th 2006 by Bonnie

9. hep c i think is the least of his worries when it comes to catching a virus or at least it better be wrap it twice

Posted at 1:06PM on Jul 30th 2006 by george mires

10. Please see http://www.FamilyLawCourts.com - a site reporting on the state of family court in California, New York, Georgia, Texas and Arizona, as well as analyzing media bias in reporting family court cases, which increasingly wind up in criminal court.

By the way, http://www.AmendmentE.com - judicial accountability most everyone in the corporate world rants against "for threatening the independence of the judiciary." Not reported? The real threat of special interests groups losing sway. Essentially, if judges, lobbyists and lawyers are against Amendment E; you know it's gotta be good. :)

Still, newspapers miss the story. Worse, of the two documentaries evidencing judicial abuse in family court (report abuse: lose custody), both solidly researched, were a snore. Would TMZ care to do some reporting on this?

Most media, including the NY Times, generally avoids the subject, excluding Leslie Eaton's take on parental alienation, a couple of years ago.

Please read letter below to another reporter and contact me if you're interested. The gist is: the evidence of a judiciary which exploiting children in family court, so lawyers and therapists can enjoy high incomes, is overwhelming.

No one else has connected the dots, including along the way I've stumbled over fake lawyers, therapists, and judges who know but don't care.

I must be doing something right because I've gotten death threats for exposing this stuff. (Which is kind of exciting in a way I'd prefer not be excited.) :)

The reality however, is Logic means less profits for those in the divorce and custody industry. Therefore there isn't much logic in Family Court.

Below is my letter to the other reporter who, if like most reporters, won't follow up.

Thanks and here's my earlier letter.

**
Dear Tim,

Although my normal job is media for attorneys; I created www.FamilyLawCourts.com when I discovered media bias (from ignoring, or completely missing the story), in family court; the one court people most use.

The Charla Mack divorce-to-murder case being a fine example.

I don't know why no one is reporting Darren Mack's three meetings with the DA was business as usual in trying to fix a divorce case but I suspect Darren Mack became dissatisfied because he wasn't getting the desired result.

Except his efforts were beginning to work.

Charla Mack had spousal and child support orders, just not the enforcement. What typically happens is more hearings for "enforcement" with women complaining about a long streak of no enforcement, (while struggling to pay the electric bill) and that's when things begin going south for them.

Also, the watchdog press appears napping still, as no one has picked up on Mack filing for bankruptcy in Family Court, and subsequently hiring a high priced legal Team for Criminal Court murder defense.

Why? Because perjury isn't prosecuted, Family court is all politics and winks. There is not much in the way of law going on in family court, because it's set up by judges to be a full employment act for all involved;and kids are the marketing wheel that turns the industry.

The public has no idea.

Would you care to report how misogyny is being used to gain grants, or why Family Court judges nationally continue to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court rulings, to a silent press?

Please check the stats of women murdered by their "intimate" partners at
www.FamilyLawCourts.com/domestic.html

Also, a lack of regular press coverage as to how judges churn the system, is causing parents to wig out. Examples of kids gettiing killed by their parents, by state, is at:
http://www.FamilyLawCourts.com/kids.html

Misleading reports slanted as to how "unusual" these cases are, are simply inaccurate and Usually complete with quote from an education official. Nevada' s Charla Mack being the latest best example of a bad example:

"Grant Stitt, Chairman of University of Nevada, Reno Criminal Justice Department, was quoted in the Reno Gazette Journal describing the killing of Darren Mack's wife "as a crime of passion" adding "Judge Weller's shooting seemed premeditated."

It's extremely worrisome when the head of an entire Justice Department in an Educational setting confuses "passion" with the premeditated actions of an individual whose response to losing power over a woman in a divorce situation, is looking to kill her.

But I digress. The police use these non-profit, "Family Justice Centers" (which deny due process) as funding opportunities for bullet proof vests, via the Office of Violence Against Women
http://www.usdoj.gov/ovw/pfjci.htm
(Scroll to the bottom to see how these "Justice Centers" are cropping up across the country faster than zits on a teenager's face .)

The short version being funds people believe are going to women, aren't Except in "discretionary" amounts. Police Departments receive the bulk of monies; which is then used for equipment.

Worse, consider police chiefs and others having sex with minors.
http://www.FamilyLawCourts.com/badcop.html

But ultimately Family Court is churned by judges. And there's more money for "professionals" if children don't testify in Family Court.

(And, in the case of LA PD - what happened to the guy who exposed LA PD cops who weren't being prosecuted for beating their wives and girlfriends)

However, one wonders why reporters haven't noticed Family Court judges ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a criminal case, (Crawford vs Washington), that children must testify.

If their word is good enough in criminal court, it should be good in civil court; except it puts "advocates" out of a job. Can't have that.

Same is true for non-profits focusing on child abuse prevention programs. AP reported on one and the short version was after spending 41 million, studying child abuse prevention programs in 4 cities over 8 years was; they don't work. Naturally those working for non-profits said they stood by their programs.

I look forward to hearing from you. If you have time, I'd also like to discuss the State Bar circumventing the criminal justice system by Not forwarding for prosecution, the number of fake lawyers and therapists practicing in Family court and Known to judges.

It took me about four years of bugging the Orange county DA before they got serious about a trial in the case of Ron Lais. He's now doing fourteen years. I'm glad because now I don't have to worry about his death threats any more.

Thanks and here's an earlier article.

***

Children may have to testify in court
A Supreme Court decision means young victims might have to confront defendants.

By Sherri M. Owens | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted January 17, 2005

TAVARES -- Jurors watched the 7-year-old witness twist and turn in the swivel chair, her feet barely touching the floor.

In between fidgeting, she stole long glances at defendant Christopher Marles, the man she said had given her "a bad touch" two years ago.

"Did you tell anyone else what happened?" Assistant State Attorney Jonathan Olson asked her Thursday.

"My mama told me not to," the girl answered.

But, in fact, she would have to tell many people what happened -- a doctor, detectives, lawyers, jurors and a judge.

Because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year, she would have to repeat all the details with the accused watching her in the courtroom. The court's decision in Crawford v. State of Washington emphasizes a criminal defendant's right to confront his accusers -- even when the accuser is a child.

The ruling has sparked debate among those who say it could traumatize children and damage prosecutors' cases, and those who say the decision helps ensure a fair trial for those charged with crimes.

Before the March ruling, a child could give a videotaped statement to professionals trained in forensic interviews. That tape then could be played in court as sworn testimony, sparing the child the potential trauma of testifying in person.

Florida law says such an out-of-court statement from a child age 11 or younger is admissible as long as the judge finds that the statement is reliable.

That statute says such a child can be deemed "unavailable as a witness" if the judge decides the child's participation in the trial could result in "severe emotional or mental harm."

Some lawyers say the Crawford ruling could nullify that part of the state law, but for now, the meaning of the high court's decision is open to the interpretation of judges.

Because of the ruling, prosecutor Olson in Tavares decided to put the child on the stand, in addition to showing the jury her videotaped statement.

"I never want to give a defendant an appealable issue," he said.

Using the Crawford ruling, defense lawyer Mark Germain challenged the tape anyway. He argued that the tape should not be admitted because the defendant was not present when it was made. The judge overruled the argument, but Olson said he expects an appeal based on it.

Supporters of the high court's decision say it upholds a protection guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, which says that the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

To bring in out-of-court statements without the speaker testifying in person "is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation," U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

That means that more often than not, all victims -- regardless of their age -- will have to speak up in open court, said Ric Ridgway, chief assistant state attorney in the 5th Judicial Circuit. The circuit is made up of Lake, Marion, Sumter, Citrus and Hernando counties.

"Those videotaped statements are almost always not going to be admissible" on their own, Ridgway said. "Crawford really restricted that."

Ridgway said the ruling could hurt the prosecution because youngsters are not always good witnesses. "It's amazing the number of adults unwilling to sit in an open courtroom and describe what happened to them," he said. "With young children, it's even harder."

Child advocates have similar concerns.

"This potentially hurts children and cases," said Jamie Barrett, clinical supervisor at the Children's Advocacy Center in Leesburg. The center provides counseling and conducts interviews of abused children for use as evidence.

Barrett said prosecutors have to consider the strength of their case -- including how the victim will respond on the witness stand -- before deciding to take the case to trial.

"If the child is not a strong witness and not very verbal, the prosecutor may decide not to pursue it," she said.

Not everyone agrees that the ruling is bad for children.

Bonnie Russell, of California, is founder of FamilyLawCourts.com, an organization she created out of her frustration with the judicial system. She said having child victims tell their stories in open court "is an important part of the healing process" and can empower them, especially when they see that their testimony leads to a conviction, as in the Marles case in Tavares. The 29-year-old was convicted Friday of sexual battery against a child.

"It is critical that they speak for themselves," she said. "Eventually, they will come to see that as their proudest, strongest moment."

Defense lawyers support the ruling, too.

Bob Wesley, public defender in Orange and Osceola counties, said it had become cumbersome for courts to determine the reliability of out-of-court comments and then determine when those statements could be admitted.

"The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of confrontation," he said. "The Constitution is one-size-fits-all and doesn't make exceptions for tender years."

***

Why not cover that?

Posted at 1:12PM on Jul 30th 2006 by Bonnie

11. Umm.... Pamela Anderson in a string bikini is the most beautiful bride you've ever seen??? You must not get out much....

Posted at 1:13PM on Jul 30th 2006 by Jenn

12. ummmm.....what does this post have to do w/ family law? oh, nevermind!

Lachey needs to fade away, like his muzac.

Star is starting to resemble a big brown toad....

Posted at 1:29PM on Jul 30th 2006 by barngoddess

13. I know what happened to Mel Gibson. Probably he was drugged (rohpynol, lsd, or similiar narcotics). He probably had a glass of wine at dinner or even maybe they spiked his Communion wine. The person that drugged him knew that he would have a glass of wine. Due to the drugging the effect of wine was multiplied in addition to the disorientation of the narcotic. Then Mel realised that he was drugged and was then pulled over by the cops- who were probably tipped off by the same jews who hired the person who slipped Mel the drugs. Once Mel realised what happened he was so incensed that he went a little wild (because the drugs also made him uncontrollable.) The frustration of knowing that the jew behind the crime wouldn't get caught made him so angry that he lashed out and the person nearest to him who happened to be the cops. This was most likely a campaign by Mossad or a Hollywood-jew to take the focus of the world's press from Israel's ethnic-cleansing campaign in Palestine. Unfortunately, the jew will not be caught and Mel will suffer the consquences of this evil plot. Its pretty easy to see what really happened and most sane people will not be fooled by this news story.

Posted at 1:45PM on Jul 30th 2006 by Albrecht Krausse

14. Star is starting to resemble a big brown toad....
Calling an African-American a toad is racially derogatory

Posted at 2:19PM on Jul 30th 2006 by headsrtails

15. Yeah, I can see this union lasting a good 6 months! But time will tell!

Posted at 3:03PM on Jul 30th 2006 by Donna