grits,
I’ve repeatedly made it clear that the indirect criminal contempt was for failure to pay legal expenses to opposing counsel in the previous thread. Since you did not understand that, I’ve concluded that there was simply a reading comprehension issue on your part.
My feeling is that Judges and lawyers should have clearly established rules and should be required to follow those rules or face the consequences as is expected of the rest of society. I would think everyone would agree with that. However, they presently do not have these and there is little in the way of consequences when they do not follow the few rules they have. This is one reason why so many are so dissatisfied with the Courts and the legal profession in general. So, I’ll continue my comments, and you should do your homework.

Trust me when I tell you the system is not designed to protect the interests of the children, family relationships, or of society.

You know what tstarkey?  I just can’t bring myself to feel sorry for you.  You lost a legal battle and now have to pay the price.  Blaming the court system for your loss by faulting the system in itself is pointless.  If you have already invested $45,000 for all of these legalities than what difference does $5,000 more make?  Just pay the money, earn the right to see your kids.  Isn’t that the most important thing here?  It sure would be to me if I were you.

Sure our court system is not perfect, but it is what it is.  Some things in life you just have to accept and move on.  I figure you will continue to “rage against the machine” of our local government here in Highlands County, but would it not benefit both you and your children if you just do what you need to do to see them and play an active role in their lives?

gritshifter - 21 November 2007 04:10 PM

You know what tstarkey?  I just can’t bring myself to feel sorry for you.  You lost a legal battle and now have to pay the price.  Blaming the court system for your loss by faulting the system in itself is pointless.  If you have already invested $45,000 for all of these legalities than what difference does $5,000 more make?  Just pay the money, earn the right to see your kids.  Isn’t that the most important thing here?  It sure would be to me if I were you.

Sure our court system is not perfect, but it is what it is.  Some things in life you just have to accept and move on.  I figure you will continue to “rage against the machine” of our local government here in Highlands County, but would it not benefit both you and your children if you just do what you need to do to see them and play an active role in their lives?

Gritz,
I’ll skip the inaccuracies in your comment. Theoretically, your suggestion makes sense. Practically speaking, it is unworkable. This is why so many children have only one biological parent actively involved in their lives in Highlands County and in many other counties in Florida as it is Court-ordered.
I have no interest in discussing my case further nor have I solicited your sympathy. I do have a few more substantive comments about the topic here and then I’ll end my contribution to the forum altogether as I’m no longer in the area.
Sincerely,
tstarkey

Here is a great article that comes from Manatee County, not far from here, that discusses the corruption that evidently has existed for quite some time in the State Judiciary in Florida. WOW.

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/mcmillan_02a.htm

Evidently, there is an “unwritten rule” that you don’t run against a sitting judge in Florida. Sitting Judges expect to have their jobs for life! Oh well, there goes the concept of meaningful Judicial elections.

Any idealistic young people thinking of going to law school and changing the world need to be aware of what the system is presently about. This State’s system will obviously need to be changed before the Judiciary can be expected to serve more than themselves and their brethren.

Let me see if I’ve got this right. If a State Judge retires within one year of election, the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) gets to select a list of candidates, one of which will be appointed as a replacement to the bench. And, this appointee will not have to run in the next election but will remain for six more years until the following election. Now, I understand there is an “unwritten rule” that nobody should run against a sitting Judge, so this appointee is there for life. Now, I wonder if the retiring Judge wants to serve out his term, if there would then be a contested election or a candidate selected by the Good Ole Boy Network who lives locally running against another from out of the area that no one has ever heard of. Also, I wonder how many sitting Judges retire within one year of the expiration of their terms. GEEZ LOUISE!

tstarkey - 21 November 2007 06:40 PM

I’ll end my contribution to the forum altogether as I’m no longer in the area.
Sincerely,
tstarkey

Finally some good news in this thread.  I wish you well in your future endeavours.

gritshifter - 23 November 2007 11:55 AM

tstarkey - 21 November 2007 06:40 PM

I’ll end my contribution to the forum altogether as I’m no longer in the area.
Sincerely,
tstarkey

Finally some good news in this thread.  I wish you well in your future endeavours.

Grits,
Do you have anything to offer in this topic other than rude behavior and personal criticism? I’ve yet to see the first substantive comment from you here or anywhere else in this forum for that matter
On the subject here, don’t be surprised if you find that my previous comments are substantially edited in the near future. I’m finding alot of information that I would like to share with the few individuals who may come across this topic, but it is now cluttered with unnecessary information, some of which is personal. But, I’m sure you will continue your personal attacks since that is all you seem to have to offer. Guess this is the mire one must wallow in when expressing views contrary to the best interests of the establishment.
I do want to tie this back into the views Thomas Jefferson expressed so many years ago as I think Florida is now experiencing the evils that he was so concerned about. But there is much more current information to discuss first, as you requested.

gritshifter - 23 November 2007 11:55 AM

tstarkey - 21 November 2007 06:40 PM

I’ll end my contribution to the forum altogether as I’m no longer in the area.
Sincerely,
tstarkey

Finally some good news in this thread.  I wish you well in your future endeavours.

gritz,
Not only do your comments lack substance but now I see you are revealing a hypocritical side. This doesn’t surprise me. On second thought, I think this forum needs an opposing view so I’ll be here for awhile. Hope you find my views palatable.

gritshifter - 23 November 2007 11:55 AM

tstarkey - 21 November 2007 06:40 PM

I’ll end my contribution to the forum altogether as I’m no longer in the area.
Sincerely,
tstarkey

Finally some good news in this thread.  I wish you well in your future endeavours.

Grits, in his defense, he has rights to feel as he does.  I know more about this than anyone else here (I think) and he has been shafted by these courts.  Unless you know the facts, please back off of him.  This is why I have not posted back, until now.

tstarkey, I’ve been busy, and I’m sorry I have not gotten back to you.  E-mail me if you’d like.  I do understand a lot more now, and I do care.

Have a good night, tstarkey. 

Sporty-

I have no problem with him feeling the way he does.  Tstarkey has a right to post here as much as I do.  He was the one claiming that his contribution to this forum was at it’s end.  I simply called his bluff.

Tstarkey-

Instead of obscure rambling and such why don’t you offer some evidence of the corruption of the courts here in Highlands county.  I might find that palatable.

gritshifter - 26 November 2007 03:27 PM

Sporty-

I have no problem with him feeling the way he does. Tstarkey has a right to post here as much as I do. He was the one claiming that his contribution to this forum was at it’s end. I simply called his bluff.

Tstarkey-

Instead of obscure rambling and such why don’t you offer some evidence of the corruption of the courts here in Highlands county. I might find that palatable.

Grits,
I’ve provided several examples in the previous thread and there are more. I don’t want to rehash them here. I have found a number of issues that are relevant not only to residents in the 10th Judicial Circuit but are relevant to residents throughout the state of Florida. These issues have to do with Judicial Appointments, rarely-held competitive elections, JNCs, the JQC, the Florida Bar, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Florida bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct. These issues really indicate a lack of institutional control by the Citizens over the Judicial Branch of State Government, a branch that I would argue affects the everyday lives of Floridians more than the more republican branches, the legislative and executive.
Initially, you complained that I was obscurely rambling with quotes from Thomas Jefferson. So, I decided to discuss the subject with current information. Basically, I was reinforcing my view that Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts are still relevant today and we are seeing the “evils” that he hoped would never come. Now you are criticizing me for “obscure ramblings” of my own. I think that you just don’t like my views on the subject but have offered nothing substantial in return.
On a personal note, I will return to Highlands County if I can figure out a way to do so without tithing the evil that I see in the Court or getting arrested on this civil warrant. My first choice would be to get my children out of the area so they could experience the personal growth opportunities that I and others in my extended family have had the good fortune of experiencing.
Otherwise, I have a few more comments to make, I don’t know how many. Then I’m thinking of taking my views to larger markets in Florida. I will also be submitting a list of 10th Judicial Circuit Judges that I believe should be removed at the first opportunity.

Being as imperfect as I am, I’m going to revisit the issue of “merit selection and retention” at the trial and county court levels as I don’t think I made the right call on that in my earlier discussion of the issue. I worked for an “obscure” and now defunct State commission, the Florida Correctional Privatization Commission, for a number of years so had an opportunity to observe the political process in Florida to some extent from an insider perspective. One thing that I learned was that when it comes to politics in Florida, things frequently are not as they appear to be. With this experience and a recent realization, I’ll readdress the issue tomorrow. However, in the meantime, please consider the following quote:

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed us in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, before anyone perceived that invisible and helpless worm had been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.” --Thomas Jefferson, 1823

Voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing circuits and counties to opt for merit selection and retention of trial judges in 1998. The question was put to voters in each county in the 2000 election. While lawyer groups representing women and minorities opposed the measure making the argument that it would lead to an underrepresentation of women and minorities on the bench, numerous editorials came out in state newspapers supporting the measure. Instead of having elections to determine who Judges would be at the circuit and county levels, merit selection and retention I believe would have given voters the right to reject circuit and county judges with whom they philosophically disagreed or with whom they were otherwise dissatisfied. The majority of every county’s voters at that time chose not to have this method of judicial selection employed in their respective counties.
Initially, upon reading this historical information, the choice of the voters makes sense as clearly voters want a choice in who their judges are. However, I now realize that there was an underlying assumption in the minds of the voters that they were choosing to have greater control over their judges through contested elections. What I know now, however, is that sitting Judges are rarely if ever subjected to contested elections (see tulane link, mcmillian article noted above). Sitting Judges, particularly those that have been appointed expect to have their positions for life.
If someone runs against them and is successful as occurred in the case of former Judge McMillian, this individual can expect to have the full power of the Judicial Branch of Florida State government brought to bear to remove them from office and possibly cost them their license to practice law in the State of Florida. That is a major deterrent to any viable candidate from the local community challenging a sitting judge regardless of the unpopularity of that sitting judge. Add to this, the difficulty a local lawyer would face in successfully defending his clients with an unsuccessful but strong effort to unseat an unpopular sitting judge, and it is no wonder that we do not see sitting judges in Florida facing strong candidates during election time.
This brings me to the following point. The choice for voters really was to choose between the lesser of two evils. On one hand, the voters could choose to continue to have elections but in reality these were and are uncontested elections, so there really is no voter option of replacing unpopular sitting judges. On the other hand, voters could choose “merit selection and retention” which I believe would have given to voters the right to remove unpopular judges through a rejection at time of election, as they now have this option for appellate and Supreme Court Justices. In light of this new information, it is clear to me that it would be in the best interests of the citizens to give them greater control over the judiciary by choosing the “merit selection and retention” option. This would give voters the option of unseating unpopular judges at the county and circuit levels. Currently, citizens do not have the option to remove unpopular Judges because elections are typically uncontested, or are contested by someone from out of the area who does not have a prayer of being elected.
Therefore, I believe that it would be in the best interest of the citizens of Highlands County, the 10th Judicial Circuit, and in fact citizens in all of the counties and judicial circuits in Florida to have the issue of “merit selection and retention” put before the voters in the respective counties again and supported in a manner that would educate the public as to the issue they are actually facing. An uneducated public seems to be one of the greatest assets the Good Ole Boy Network has in maintaining its absolute power over the citizenry in Florida.

I wonder if there is a correlation between the safeguard of children and their rights in Florida and the level of Judicial republicanism (control by the citizens over the Judicial Branch of State Government). Given the demographics in Florida with a higher than the national average percentage of senior citizens residing in the State, it is surprising but nationally known that Florida has significant problems protecting the safety and well-being of its’ children. I’ll think about that, do a little research, and offer substantive information to support whatever conclusions I reach.