MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of June 15, 2016, we've received over 142,500 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Judge Suspended for 45 Days for Violating Man's Due Process

Judge suspended for 45 days without pay
The Herald Leader by Shawntaye Hopkins - November 11, 2009
shopkins@herald-leader.com

FRANKFORT, KY — A Central Kentucky family court judge accused of judicial misconduct has been suspended for 45 days without pay and publicly reprimanded. The Judicial Conduct Commission, the state's judicial oversight body, ruled that Judge Tamra Gormley, whose district covers Scott, Woodford and Bourbon counties, inappropriately handled two cases: a domestic violence hearing in Scott County and a child custody hearing in Woodford County. A third count against Gormley, which stemmed from a child custody case in Scott County, was dismissed because the commission said the charge was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Gormley's attorney, William Hoskins of Lexington, said he reviewed the order Monday and discussed it with Gormley. Hoskins said they appreciate the commission for dismissing one charge but respectfully disagree with the findings on the other charges. Hoskins said they are contemplating an appeal. The commission released its ruling Friday — nearly a month after Gormley's hearing. The commission, the only entity authorized to discipline a sitting Kentucky judge, had until Feb. 19 to render a decision. The ruling says Gormley violated a man's due process rights in a Scott County case. The commission said she held a man in contempt without advance notice and without his attorney present. Gormley did not witness the actions outside the courtroom that led to the contempt charge. The commission said that while "a court undoubtedly has the power to hold a person in contempt of court for actions outside the sensory perception of the judge" (as was true in this situation), it "may not exercise that power without holding a hearing that provides the person with advance notice of the contempt proceeding." On the second count, the commission found that Gormley entered a change of custody order that removed a child from the custody of her father but denied the father the right to put on his own evidence. Gormley, the commission found, acted as an advocate for the mother in that case. Gormley's actions "were not mere legal error," the ruling says. "A reasonably prudent and competent judge would conclude the conduct of Judge Gormley to be obviously and seriously wrong in all the circumstances of the cases." Hoskins disagreed. The commission did not cite any Kentucky law that was violated, he said, and there were no independent witnesses who testified against Gormley during the hearing on the charges. "We truly believe Judge Gormley applied the appropriate Kentucky law and did so in good faith," he said.

8 comments:

Mr. Lincoln said...

What's wrong with the state of Kentucky?!? Their system of law actually cares about due process?!? Things are easier when, like in New York, you can just dispense of such formalities as due process. New York's illegal court system prefers that the quicker corrupt insiders can steal the goods and protect their corrupt friends, the better.

Anonymous said...

DUE PROCESS, what the heck is that?

Anonymous said...

Isn't that a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!!

Anonymous said...

WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!IN NEW YORK THERE'S NO SUCH RIGHT OR LAW THAT PROTECTS THE CITIZENS!!!

Anonymous said...

I rcently had a federal court practicing atty tell me that you are not always afforded the right to due process!
So I guess due process in the minds of NY state attys and judges is a right that has to be determined and can come and go!
This comment was made after I explained that 1000 pages of ruling discovery was wihtheld and handed over after the hearing and that the judge was hand picked by OCA, worked for OCA in many other capacities and made comments about my witnesses veracity when my counsel left the room.... while their purpose was to acheive a result that OCA desired and would only accept.
The 14 th amendment appears to be in affect only in states where corruption is not tolerated!
Due porcess must be a hair procedure in NY.

Anonymous said...

I just had the Atty Grievance tell me they only handle ethics complaints and after their denial I have 14 days to respond to the defamation & insanity written by a lawyer in their defense to deny my rights........this is insane and the attorneys behavior on both counts is criminal........
we'll just malpractice this, it will cost them, that is RICO
and it is two little fishes in the big pond and where are they to investigate......
floating on top or growing at the bottom!

Anonymous said...

I just had the Atty Grievance tell me they only handle ethics complaints and after their denial I have 14 days to respond to the defamation & insanity written by a lawyer in their defense to deny my rights........this is insane and the attorneys behavior on both counts is criminal........
we'll just malpractice this, it will cost them, that is RICO
and it is two little fishes in the big pond and where are they to investigate......
floating on top or growing at the bottom!

Anonymous said...

I just had the Atty Grievance tell me they only handle ethics complaints and after their denial I have 14 days to respond to the defamation & insanity written by a lawyer in their defense to deny my rights........this is insane and the attorneys behavior on both counts is criminal........
we'll just malpractice this, it will cost them, that is RICO
and it is two little fishes in the big pond and where are they to investigate......
floating on top or growing at the bottom!

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2