Divorce Source: Another bad judge story... this one is the worst.

December 23, 2004

IT WAS A GREAT CHRISTMAS PARTY!!!! Kids had a blast. We had Egg Nog, cookies, cakes, Dion's great pumkin bread and Dion brought arts and crafts projects for the kids.

Merry Christmas to All

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Del Gallo announces possible run for State Representative Seat if Rep. Larkin steps down.

2. NEW YORK POST Article on Judge Cjzaka (A New York Judge on Mass Border)

3. AP Article on Mass SJC forcing Children to testify against father that appeared in Boston Globe and Articles across the country.
_________________________________________________________________

ITEM 1

Thursday, December 23, 2004

PRESS RELEASE

Spokesman for the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition, Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, expressed interest in running for Massachusetts State Representative, district of Pittsfield, if Representative Peter Larkin steps down.

Del Gallo, a shared parenting activist, states that if he were to run, his focus would be on education and health care. “My parents always told me that there are two important things in life—your health and your education. Were I to be state representative, my representation would reflect this.” Additionally, Del Gallo would focus on regional economic development.

Del Gallo would also fight to implement family court reform.

Del Gallo is an attorney specializing in family law and intellectual property.

Attorney Del Gallo may be reached at 413-443-3150.

_________________________________________________________________

ITEM 2

THANKS, THIS ITEM FROM JIM DORAN

Philip thought you would find this story from NYPOST.COM
interesting:

JUDGE DREAD
By BRAD HAMILTON

Click on the link below to access the story.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/36767.htm

Did you know that 3.4 million visited New York Post Interactive at
www.nypost.com making it the 4th most popular online newspaper
nationwide?*
*Nielsen Netratings December 2003

To sign up for Daily Newsletter Alerts, please visit
http://www.nypost.com/php/newsletter/classify_newsletter_clicks.php

December 19, 2004 -- EXCLUSIVE

He could be the worst judge in the state.

At least that's what some people in Columbia County are saying about
Paul Czajka, a local jurist under fire for allegedly making
outrageous rulings, including giving custody to an abusive mom
who "circumcised" her boy with a lit cigarette.

The boy's father and at least six other litigants filed complaints
about Czajka to the state's court watchdog, casting him as a
vindictive tyrant who's sided with bad parents to favor lawyers he
once worked with when he was the district attorney or in private
practice.

The judge also has been hit with a federal civil suit in Manhattan
by Wall Street financial consultant John Chase, who claims Czajka
ruled for his ex-wife Kristin despite her facing bank fraud charges.

"He's the most complained-about judge we've ever seen," said George
Courtney, who heads the Columbia County chapter of the statewide
Fathers' Rights Association.

But it's not just men he's outraged.

Three complaints are by women, including Michelle Mayer, a battered
wife and mother of four who says Czajka illegally removed her kids
because she exposed them to beatings she suffered by her ex-husband,
though he was arrested when she called the cops.

But no action has been taken against Czajka (pronounced ch-EYE-kah),
50, a politically connected Republican who narrowly won re-election
to a 10-year term despite being ripped by one of the most respected
lawyers in the state.

Complaints to the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct allege:

* The judge failed to protect a 13-year-old boy who's allegedly
endured years of abuse, including the nightmarish circumcision, a
scalding with hot water on his side and broken ribs.

The boy also accidentally severed his fingertips when his mother
allowed him to play with a chainsaw, according to a complaint by the
father, carpenter John Calkins, 32, who's been battling for custody
of the kid.

Calkins claims the mother once informed him that her family knew the
judge.

* Czajka has in two cases jailed fathers in custody fights, one who
served time for violating a court order by discussing custody with
his wife after an accident in which she got drunk and smashed into a
telephone pole, injuring one of her daughters.

* Czajka engaged in a "vendetta" against another father, plumbing
contractor George Ihlenburg, who did work at the judge's home and
believes he was targeted because Czajka wasn't happy with the job,
his complaint says.

* Czajka railroaded an elderly husband, Herbert Stickles, 69, into a
sex-abuse conviction after false charges were brought against the
man, by allowing his lawyer to not present a defense, according to
his wife, Pat.

She claims the case was retribution for her suing the county after
being sickened by the social-services building where she worked in
Hudson, an office put up over an old oil-storage facility.

A court observer, John Dunne, said of the jurist: "The criticism is
he's often insensitive to the needs of women and children."

Dunne is the former head of the state senate's judiciary committee
and now part of a blue-ribbon panel to restore public confidence in
how New York judges are elected.

He served as a juror in a case before Czajka — though it wasn't a
family matter — and told The Post he came away with an "unfavorable"
opinion of him, though he wouldn't elaborate.

So Dunne crossed party lines to back challenger Pam Joern, who
slammed Czajka — who handles criminal, family and surrogate cases —
claiming he's too quick to remove kids from their parents.

Figures show that rural Columbia County has the highest number of
children in foster care per capita in the state: 4 per 1,000 — the
statewide average is 2.5.

"The problem is he's an attractive man and kind of charming, but he
gets on the bench and he's destructive," said Joern, a 54-year-old
lawyer. "He's an arrogant, narcissistic, nasty person. He's got a
huge chip on his shoulder."

Said Philip Mann, an advocate who encouraged the litigants to tell
their stories, "Chief Judge Judith Kaye and Gov. Pataki were both
sent these complaints, and I believe it was their acquiescence that
empowered Judge Czajka."

The CJC has never publicly censured Czajka and dismissed the Mayer
and Ihlenburg complaints.

Czajka, saying ethics prevented him from discussing cases,
said, "There has never been a case before me where a parent has
alleged to have burned a child's penis."

__________________________________________________________________

ITEM 3: VARIOUS STORIES ON SJC FORCING CHILDREN TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEIR FATHERS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

THIS STORY WAS REPRINTED BY BOSTON GLOBE AND NEWS PAPERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

BOSTON GLOBE

Today's Globe Politics Opinion Education Science
NECN Special reports Obituaries Traffic | Weather

Home > News > Local
SJC rules children can be forced to testify against father
By Denise Lavoie, Associated Press, 12/14/2004 14:57

BOSTON (AP) The state's highest court ruled Tuesday that children can
be forced to testify against a parent in criminal proceedings if they
do not live with the parent.

The ruling came in a case in which a 17-year-old boy and his 15-year-
old sister were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury
investigating allegations that their father gave two of the girl's
teenage friends alcohol, played a drinking game with them and raped
them.

The children's lawyer tried to quash the subpoenas, but a Superior
Court judge ruled that a state law protecting children from
testifying against their parents in criminal proceedings only applies
to children who are living with their parents.

While the matter was being appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court,
the grand jury indicted the father without the children's testimony.
But the SJC decided to rule on the question anyway, in case the issue
should arise in a future case.

The ruling also means the children may be forced to testify at their
father's upcoming criminal trial. No trial date has been set yet.

The parents in the case were separated, and the children lived with
their mother in Duxbury, while their father lived in Hull. No names
were used in the court's decision because of grand jury secrecy
rules.

The SJC upheld the lower court's ruling, finding that because the
children did not live with their father, they were not disqualified
from testifying.

''The limited testimonial disqualification serves a legitimate state
purpose by excusing the child witness who could be most affected by
having to testify (namely a child living with an accused parent)
because that child likely interacts closely with the suspected or
accused parent on a daily basis and is the one most vulnerable to
harm if made to testify,'' Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the
unanimous 6-0 decision.

Attorney Meaghan Barrett, who represented the children, said she
believes the law was intended to apply not only to children who live
with their parents, but to children whose parents are separated.

''The issue here as the Legislature made clear is to protect families
and families exist in all different permutations,'' she said.

''I don't think any child should have to testify against their father
or their mother.''

Barrett said prosecutors have indicated they plan to subpoena the
children as witnesses at their father's trial.

But District Attorney Timothy Cruz, whose office is prosecuting the
case, declined to comment on whether the children will be forced to
testify.

Cruz said he agreed with the SJC's decision.

''The statute is not ambiguous. It only disqualifies children who
live with their parents,'' he said. {Rinaldo's Notes: Hmm. Thought provoking. An unambigous statute. It only disqualifies children who live with their parents. So if the children lived with the father part of the time, the ineluctable conclusion would be . . . hmmm let me think. Nope, can't figure this one out.}

''We have a responsibility to protect the public,'' he said. ''If
that means we need to proceed by the use of a child or some other
witness while trying as best we can to alleviate the issues that come
from testifying in court we will do what we have to do to make sure
the public is safe from individuals who are causing harm.''

David Yas, editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said the SJC may
be trying to point out a loophole in the law through its ruling.

''One of its well-known agendas is to help define the law as it
pertains to changing notions of the family,'' Yas said, ''so this may
be one of those places where the SJC is pointing out that as per the
law now, that children who happen to be separated from their fathers
may be forced to testify.''

Editors' Note: Denise Lavoie is a Boston-based reporter covering the
courts and legal issues. She can be reached at dlavoie(at)ap.org

********************

BROCKTON NEWS

Teenagers Must Testify Against Parents
By
Dec 15, 2004, 19:31

Email this article
Printer friendly page

BOSTON -- Children can be forced to testify against a parent in criminal proceedings if they do not live with the parent, the state's highest court ruled Tuesday in the case of a man charged with raping two of his daughter's teenage friends.

In the case, a 17-year-old boy and his 15-year-old sister who lived with their mother were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating allegations that their father gave two of the girl's teenage friends alcohol, played a drinking game with them and raped them.

A lower judge ruled that a Massachusetts law protecting children from testifying against their parents in criminal proceedings applies only to children who live with the parent charged. While the matter was being appealed, the grand jury indicted the father without the children's testimony. Under Tuesday's ruling, the children may be forced to testify at their father's criminal trial, which has not yet been scheduled.

© Copyright 2004 by BrocktonMass.com.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/DROolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

_____________________________________________
Too much e-mail? Don't unsubscribe. Send back an e-mail requesting to be on "Special Notices" and you will only be notified of major events, amounting to only a few e-mails per year.

This newsletter is put together by Attorney Rinaldo Del Gallo, spokesman of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition, who practices in family law. He may be reached at 413-443-3150 for those needing legal help or support. The Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition meets the first and third Wednesdays at the Berkshire Medical Center (BMC), 710 North St., Pittsfield, MA.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Berkshire_Fatherhood_Coalition/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Berkshire_Fatherhood_Coalition-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--------------------
Equality is not a difficult concept