There's a Biblical principle that "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much." There's also the inverse that "whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." (Luke 16:10) Even if you don't believe the Bible, I trust you believe Jesus' words here. If you had a cashier in your business who you thought was skimming, you wouldn't put them in charge of your accounting books, right? That would be foolish.
And so it was with the dishonorable judge hinson. (Hereinafter, dishonorable j.h.) If he wouldn't keep the "small" things, like obeying the State Constitution and being truthful to the Supreme Court (those are small things?), what makes you think he would keep the large things, like ruling rightly in your case and your life? In this example, dishonorable j.h.'s ruling is truly crazy, although there's an ironic twist to it in the end.
This is going to be a long story, with lots of cites from a real world case where dishonorable j.h. has no law on his side and infringes on a husband's religious beliefs as he makes his insane ruling. (But again, these aren't things the Commission cares about.) So if you want, you can skip to the end.
The case is the marriage (actually, the divorce) of Melody Anne Bodine v. Gregory Bodine, DO 2006-0917. (How is it that church marries people but the State divorces them?) This example centers on a trial of September 20, 2007. Among a host of issues that day was the issue of extending an expired Order of Protection (OOP) which Mrs. Bodine had previously obtained, rightly or wrongly, against her husband more than a year before. Men, if you've ever suffered through an OOP, they have got to be one of the most unconstitutional, one sided laws on the books.
Your wife can come to a judge crying and lying, making all sorts of bogus claims against you (think Duke Lacrosse Rape allegation), and suddenly you can be kicked out of your own house by the cops without any due process! There are no consequence for your wife if she lies to the cops or a judge, so what has she got to lose? She could even be mentally deranged and still get an OOP against you, as we'll see. Once she gets a taste of power, she'll use the cops and the OOP to bully you around, threatening to call 911 to yank your chain. She'll disobey the Order, calling you on the phone or pushing your buttons, but woe to you if you call her! The cops will do everything for the damsel in distress, but they'll put you off if you complain.
Whether OOP's are constitutional or not, there are certain laws that are supposed to be followed to grant or extend one. For example, there has to be a real threat of physical harm as demonstrated by specific and articuable facts. In the case of extending an OOP, the petitioner has to show acts have continued during the year the OOP was in place or that the OOP had been violated. The law not withstanding, judges hand these things out to women like candy. (Not so to men.) In fact, the OOP in the Bodine matter had expired, being more than a year old. And yet, the dishonorable j.h. entertained an extension of an expired Order, never mind that the proper procedure is for Mrs. Bodine to re-petition. You can see already that a judge who doesn't keep the law himself won't keep it for others.
Even "Judge" Rhonda Repp (a Family Law Commissioner) may be guilty of violating the law. I don't have time to follow up, but would someone please request a copy of the audio from an OOP extension granted by "Judge" Repp on October 1, 2009, around 1 p.m. to 1:30 and report on it? From what I heard from the petitioner while she was waiting outside, her husband had complied with the OOP, contacting her only "through attorneys" as allowed by law. But "Judge" Repp granted her extension anyway. This sexagenarian was so giddy when she got her extension, she acted like a little girl who, instead of being genuinely fearful, had just gotten away with torquing her brother under mom's eyes. As I said before, OOP's are used by women to bully men.
I'll focus on just a few of the facts presented at trial to show how insane dishonorable j.h's ruling was. FYI, I am not a party to this trial. It serves as a typical real world example.
First, to set the stage, you should know that a year before, shortly after Mrs. Bodine obtained her original OOP, evidence had been entered into the record from a Ph. D. Sociologist, who, from first hand observation, advised Mrs. Bodine to "seek more intensive psychiatric counseling and perhaps medication at this time." Even Mrs. Bodine's own lawyer told the dishonorable j.h. that "... my client is in absolute serious need of counseling. She likewise basically is someone I would characterize as suffering from post traumatic stress." This all happened in the dishonorable j.h.'s court and he had the data. (Trial of October 12, 2006.)
Can you see where this is going already? You can be crazy and still get an OOP against someone. There's no check for being of "sound mind." You could have delusions that your husband was out to get you and still get an OOP, even though you have no facts to justify it. (How many of you have armed guards at your daughter's wedding as Mrs. Bodine did?)
In fact, it was accidentally discovered at trial that Mrs. Bodine had vacated her court appointed residence without telling anyone! (It also came out that she took all the door knobs!) All the time she had her husband drop the children off to an empty house and all the time he's struggling to pay the mortgage (while he's also paying a rental for him) while she's telling others that he's starving her to death. To his credit, the dishonorable j.h. tried to find the reason for Mrs. Bodine's clandestine move (although he lead the witness, trying to get her to use the word "fear,") but all he got was lots of gibberish involving hearsay about someone calling a church about homeschooling. I'd quote the dialog here but it would make your head spin. [1]
With this background established, let's now consider the salient testimony from September 20, 2007 as it pertains to an OOP. [This all is in the public record. You can examine it yourself for free at any Superior Court clerk's office in Arizona.] I've made some editorial comments in [brackets.]
From page 42:So you see, Mrs. Bodine has nothing to substantiate her fear. One wonders if that's a rational fear then.
Q. ... do you today have fear for your physical well-being?
A. Yes, sir. I do. [Not ground in reality, as she'll confirm later.]
From page 48:
Q: During the last year, have you filed with any court any application to claim that there's been a violation of the order of protection.
A: No, I did not.
Page 49:
Q: During the past year has your husband struck you at all?
A: Physically? [Ummm... do you know any other way to strike someone?]
A: Hit me? No, sir.
Q: Has your husband in any way damaged any of your property or community property in your presence?
A: No, sir, not in my presence.
Q: Has he threatened bodily harm to you, a direct threat to bodily harm to you?
A: No, sir.
Q: Has there ever been a situation under which he's caused something to happen, thrown something at you or done something indirect that would endanger you that you've seen in the last year?
A: No, sir.
I note that at an earlier trial, October 12, 2006, Mrs. Bodine's own attorney said,
"There are no allegations of physical abuse of any kind by either parent in these affidavits or that sort of thing."
THEN WHY WAS AN ORDER OF PROTECTION GRANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE??? (Ask Judge Markham. He issued it.) But wait, it gets crazier.
In some sort of attempt to find out what's going on inside the mind of Mrs. Bodine, the dishonorable j.h. questioned her. Here he starts to stray into 1st Amendment issues of freedom of religion of her husband.
From Page 61:So what have we seen so far? Evidence was presented to question Mrs. Bodine's mental well being. Even by her own attorney. She moved out of her house for no good reason (taking the door knobs with her), forcing the children to play a charade on their father.
Q: How long were you married to this man?
A: Twenty-five years.
Q: In the 25 years that you were married to Mr. Bodine, can you tell me of a time when he was confronted with something that he felt was contrary to his beliefs about God's law? [WHAT? Would any judge ask a Muslim that?]
A. When he was confronted?
Q: Yes. He comes home and he says: Melody, you've been my wife for all these years; something happened today; it was wrong; this person did something that was wrong; it was contrary to God's law. Has he ever come home and told you about something like that? [Boy, talk about leading the witness.]
A: Something outside our family?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Do you remember what it was that the person did?
A: Yes, I can think of one example.
Q: Would you tell me?
A: John F. Kennedy, Jr., apparently led an immoral life and when he died in his plane crash my husband was quite happy about that, that he felt that God had overruled or something, that that was a good thing that happened. [Ummm... so like it will be wrong for Americans to be happy if Osama Bin Ladin is found dead?]
Q: Now, before Mr. Kennedy Jr's plane went down in the gulf before he died, had your husband complained about the way he conducted himself?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And felt it was contrary to God's law? [Wow. Can the State really ask these religious questions and use it against you?]
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what did he do about the way John Kennedy, Jr. was living his life?
A: Just talked. [Gasp!]
Q: Okay. Anything else? Any other example of your husband being confronted with someone living or making personal choices with which he disagreed? [Oh, didn't get the answer you wanted? More leading the witness, dishonorable judge hinson? She already testified there was only one example.]
A: Yes. He would go and confront them, yes. He would sit them down and explain to them.
Q: Talk to them?
A: Yes, reason. [double gasp!]
Q: Express verbally his disagreement?
A: Yeah, and give reasons and compel.
Q: Was he ever violent with anyone?
A: Of those people?
Q: Anyone.
A: Who discussed ...
Q: Who had done something he disagreed with felt was contrary in God's law?
A: Only myself, not in a physical way but a threatening way, only myself. [How can it be "threatening" if it's never been physical? Isn't that subjective? Does it mean her husband got angry and raised his voice ocassionally? Ooohhhh. Bad bad husband. The State will punish you for that.]
But wait, there's more.
Page 64:
Question from the dishonorable judge hinson: One of the things that I'm charge with considering in matters dealing with orders of protection is whether there will be domestic violence if I don't issue an order of protection. [Well, at least he admitted he's supposed to go by the law.]
A: Right
Q: What violence do you believe will take place? [Wow. Talk about leading the witness. And remember, this is after all the stuff where she admits there hasn't been any violence! I'm no attorney, but doesn't this call for speculation? You mean we can kick a husband out of his house because of what a wife "believes" will take place? That's not what the law says.]
A: My main concern stems from the fact that on several...
Q: I'm not talking about your concern. I want you to tell me what's going to happen if I don't extend this order. [For the first time, the dishonorable j.h. starts to get annoyed with the dithering witness.]
A: He can feel free to do what he started to do before, which is EXPRESS it in a public fashion, coming after me, getting this close to me and not stopping when I say stop. That is what I am afraid of. I am afraid that he will have this anger and hostility that he denies that he possesses but all the marital counselors way is there and will -- and [guilt complex?] the fact that I am evil and malignant that that will come out, because it has proceeded to come out and he feels comfortable doing it....
[In other words, husbands, never get angry when your wives leave you or they will claim Domestic Violence. Of course, it's okay for them to get angry at you.
I'm not an attorney, but isn't testifying what she says marital counselors have said, isn't that called "hearsay?' How do we know she's telling the truth about what was said? I thought judges were supposed to know these things.]
Both she and her own attorney admitted there has been no violence by her husband. She said the worse thing he does when he disagrees with someone is to sit down and reason with them.
The dishonorable judge hinson repeatedly tried to lead her to say the magic word, but she never did. He even admitted that he needed something concrete to establish there would be violence if he didn't extend her (now expired) OOP.
How did he rule? Well, remember what Jesus said. If he can't be trusted with the small things... Since the dishonorable judge hinson wouldn't obey our State Constitution and since he lied to the Supreme Court on his monthly salary Certifications, why would you think he would obey any law? Here's what he said (page 94. All emphasis mine):
Mrs. Bodine has shown, as Mr. Moore points out, that if I don't continue this Order of Protection SHE'S liable to decide that she has to take the children and go off someplace where no once find her because of her DESIRE to INDULGE her FEAR in order to REINFORCE her decision to continue on this course of separation from Mr. Bodine. ...Wow. Indulging fear? That's the very definition of paranoia!
The Order of Protection will be extended.
But instead of saying there was no evidence at all of violence, and in fact, evidence to the contrary, instead of quashing the OOP and giving custody of the children to the sane parent, the dishonorable judge hinson essentially says that because Mrs. Bodine is crazy and may indulge her fear, she may, in her paranoia go off someplace where no one can find her. (Despite court ordered father's visitation, which would be a violation of law.) And why? Because she wants to reinforce her (evil and malignant ) decision to separate from her husband.
That's like saying, "Despite the facts and law, I'm giving her an OOP because she'll commit suicide if I don't."
Now that's insane.
Not to give the Kiss of Death again to Judge Mackey by mentioning him in this blog, but he did the right thing in a similar case. I've noticed these divorce trials seem all the same... the woman goes nuts and wants to leave her husband and makes up all sorts of stories to justify her decision. In an almost Twilight Zone parallel universe reenactment of a trial similar to the Bodine's, Judge Mackey correctly ordered psychological counseling for the wife. (Who tried to slink out of it, going only one time with an innocent "I didn't know I was supposed to keep going" type excuse later.) Again, what are the courts doing divorcing people?
[1] For anyone interested, here's what she first said about why she moved out: Her attorney is querying her.
At a later hearing, she changed her story entirely, claiming instead (as led by her attorney) that she "feared" she was going to be literally booted out on the street because her husband wasn't able to make the last two mortgage payments. So she moved into a rental. But if she could pay rent, why didn't she help pay the mortgage? (See transcript May 1, 2008)
Crazy.
Q: Where do you sleep at night?So the bottom line is that she moved out of the family house because she didn't like being told she was in sin. Later in this trial, when the dishonorable j.h. questioned her, she added gibberish involving hearsay about someone calling a church about homeschooling as a reason for leaving.
A. Currently, our children and myself are in a home of safety, a shelter home.
Q. Why?
A. A couple of reasons. My husband's communications to me specifically in December told me an announcement from him that among other things I have an evil, malignant heart, that I have sinister and ghoulish speculations, that my thoughts are like black India ink on a white table cloth, that I have surrounded myself with people who have caused my warped thinking, that my thoughts addiction has set in, that I am sick and that I have gone against God's law, and that I have even invoked the law of the land in our situation and have come out from underneath his authority. [In other words, she's in sin.]
Q. Whose authority?
A. My husband's supposedly biblical authority over me. [According to God, it's not "supposed." Also see 1 John 2:4 and substitute the word "woman" for "man."] That is a cause for concern.
More so than that is that when we met in counsel, our former attorneys regarding that particular e-mail and some others, when his counsel was trying to explain to him that that is inappropriate, his response, and this was in April I believe--
MR. KAZRAGIS: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this being irrelevant to the order of protection issue and all the issues of the Court today. [He was right. One's religious beliefs are protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. The State is not supposed to be able to punish you because you live your life according to God's words in the Bible.]
THE COURT: Overruled. [Figures.]
His response to that e-mail was this, and I believe that I quote: But what if it is true?
Q: How does that --
THE COURT: I'm sorry, the response?
A: But what if these things, that's not a direct quote -- but what if it's true, that these things are the case that I have an evil and malignant heart. It's not appropriate for him to communicate those things to me, was his attorney's point. But his response, instead of agreeing was, well, but what if it is true.
At a later hearing, she changed her story entirely, claiming instead (as led by her attorney) that she "feared" she was going to be literally booted out on the street because her husband wasn't able to make the last two mortgage payments. So she moved into a rental. But if she could pay rent, why didn't she help pay the mortgage? (See transcript May 1, 2008)
Crazy.
No comments:
Post a Comment