October 14, 1999
Attendees as appointees of subcommittee - Richard Weiss and Arthur Ignatiadis The nuts and bolts: 1. The meeting lasted about 3.5 hours. Half of the leadership of the Family Law Meeting was there. The subcommittee
has 30 members on it, about 2/3 showed up yesterday. The moderator and chairman was Mark Kennedy, a retired supreme
court justice and son-in-law of Gov. George Wallace. [Be
careful Mark Kennedy is also on the Child Support Committee.] 2. Fuller and McMillan were there, also about 5-6 Circuit Court Judges, various attorneys, DHR, Domestic Violence
Coalition, and Dr. Guy Renfro, a Montgomery psychologist. Also, Ed Wilson (grandparents rights) and a reporter
from the Huntsville Times (who sat in the back, he told me he is intending to run a series in the newspaper about
these issues). 3. Arthur and I did a lot of the talking and raising of issues. As usual, we were well prepared, referenced,
and seemed to spend much of the session exposing the issues of gender bias, need for joint custody, the HB-97 bill,
etc. Although our arguments were sound and factual, there was as expected a lot of resistance and opposition to
HB-97 and the concept of joint custody. The judges had no real basis to oppose these other than emotionally appealing
to one's common sense and their own experience. They had a uniform lack of knowledge of the Alabama Joint Custody
Statute (no wonder it is ignored) and even when Arthur and I READ it out loud to them, they didn't understand it.
I asked the entire group who amongst them were opposed, even in principle, to the awarding of joint custody to
two fit parents at the time of divorce. No one answered, most looked uncomfortable. 4. The judges and divorce attorneys are vehemently opposed to HB97 and consider it lunacy. Even Rep. McMillan
now seems to be swaying and believing it is too controversial to pass. Arthur and I disagree with him about abandoning
it. I indicated to the subcommittee that a newer version of HB-97 will be presented, whereby we are inserting an
additional option for the 12 year old--a choice of BOTH parents (joint custody). This should defuse the arguments
of the parents manipulating the child to choose one over the other. Still, the judges were finding fault with it,
even if joint custody were an option. 5. The Chairman attempted to summarily dismiss the subcommittee as irrelevant stating that he believed no legislation
would ever work to uniformly compel judges to declare joint custody or defer to the wishes of 12 year olds. There
was nothing that could be done except to change public opinion (one judge I talked to in the hall said that there
could never be any legislation to compel judges to give joint custody or allow 12 year olds to decide--the best
way to have this accomplished, he said, was at the polls to elect a judge "more favorable to these positions."
note: there aren't any). 6. I disagreed with Kennedy and stated that if the legislature at a minimum strengthened the Alabama Joint Custody
Statute so that there would be a very strong compelling requirement (presumption) to award joint physical and legal
custody to both parents (assuming fitness), the judges WOULD pay more attention and it would invariably have a
positive effect. I also said that together with this if the McLendon were abolished the custody problems in Alabama
would be significantly improved for many. Many of the attorneys agreed about the need to throw out McLendon. 7. The judges tried a last ditch attempt to invalidate the arguments against their custody policies by saying
that there was only a "perceived" problem about gender bias and inequities or corrupt custody policies.
Most all judges, they maintained, were doing a very good job and taking each case on its own merits, as they should
do. If there were any problems anywhere, it was likely due to a busy docket and too many cases for too few judges
and inability of the judge to get all the facts or circumstances, due to lack of time, before an order was made. 8. Rep. McMillan made a comment that in his experience there was no "perception" of a problem, there
was a BIG problem. Many of his constituents and other people from all over the state were calling him and complaining
about abusive situations mediated by the court and judicial corruption. He basically told the subcommittee that
it was his duty and responsibility as a legislator to propose bills to be passed that would address the needs of
the people and address wrongs. That he and Rep. Fuller were going to proceed and make sure this was done. He would
prefer the judges work with us so that the process of getting these bills drafted and passed would be expedited
and that this would be best for the people of Alabama. 9. In response, one of the judges reasoned with the others that they had best work with McMillan and the subcommittee
to draft bills they 'could live with' instead of being compelled by bills they opposed. 10. As a result of these comments and Arthur and my arguments that the subcommittee was very important in working
with the legislature to recommend constructive custody legislation, Kennedy created a "working subcommittee"
of the subcommittee (actually a subcommittee of the subcommittee of the committee) to hammer out the finer details
of custody legislation and address other topics discussed at the meeting yesterday (including joint custody, McLendon,
ore tenus rule. training of family judges, move-away legislation, terminology changes, etc). 11. Arthur and I signed up for the working subcommittee which should meet next month and work on proposals.
The larger subcommittee on custody will meet again in January early enough to interact with the legislature to
pass bills for next session. I am going to bring models of stronger joint custody statutes from other states and
Arthur will provide some move away statutes, among other things. We will also bring a newer version of HB97 to
incorporate the joint custody option. 12. It is very clear that the judges are indeed very biased (as we all already knew) and unwilling to relinquish
any control or power over decisions in their courtroom, whatever it is, apparently even regardless of statute (they
implied that except for one statute that automatically imposes life imprisonment on repeat offenders which they
have to follow, no state would ever be able to legislate an order without their discretion). They are entitled
to their opinions. Still, we will see how much we can accomplish in the working committee to agree on custody statutes
we can all live with. As rigid as the judges were at the meeting, these representatives of the judiciary still
seem to be the most open-minded (as difficult as that is to imagine). Most judges refused to participate on the
subcommittee or even acknowledge a different position. If I get meeting minutes later from Peg walker, I will be sure to forward them. Best, Dr. Richard C. Weiss
I wanted to share with you a letter I just received from the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission. I had written
them a letter of protest and request for further information. Specifically, I wanted a copy of their proceedings
and minutes of their October meeting and the specific reasons for their conclusion that the judge I had submitted
a detailed complaint of judicial misconduct and multiple violations of judicial canons of ethics, was found innocent
of all charges. Their findings were ludicrous, as I had submitted actual evidence that violations were committed. I quoted the federal Freedom of Information Act to compel them to yield this information. I realized that they
never would submit to disclosure, but I wanted to catch them at their own game. It worked beautifully. As you can see, the judiciary states that all of its proceedings are secret, other than the fact that they will
publicly disclose that a complaint has been filed (wow!). They quote the Alabama Constitution as an authority.
This is even more laughable, because it is the lawyer legislators and judges themselves who concoct the provisions
in the Alabama Constitution that prevents any disclosure of their clandestine meetings or proceedings in the first
place! The judges never need to have ANY accountability, because as they say, the Constitution (very fortuitously)
prohibits it. What a wonderful perversion of justice. The stuff dictatorships are made. Stalin would be proud. Richard
Judicial Inquiry Commission Dear Dr. Weiss: The Judicial Inquiry Commission appreciates your letter of October 28, 1999. However, due to confidentiality
provisions in the law governing proceedings before the Commission, I am prohibited from informing you of any proceedings
before the Commission, other than the filing of public charges against a judge with the Court of the Judiciary. The Alabama Constitution provides that "[a]ll proceedings of the commission shall be confidential except
the filing of a complaint with the Court of the Judiciary." ALA. CONST. Amend.581, sec6.17(b).
The Commission is not subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act. I regret that you disagree with the Commission's disposition of your complaint, but be assured that members
of the Commission seriously consider all complaints and seek to act on them in an appropriate manner. Yours truly, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION Randall L. Cole Chairman (P.S. I wonder when and why the above amendment was put in the Alabama Constitution, that prevents public scrutiny
of any proceedings against a judge. Seems like most all other types of hearings or trials have a transcript that
can be examined upon request or subpoena). Might they be hiding anything?
Amendment 581 Article VI; Sections 6.17 AND 6.18 Amended Section 6.17. A judicial inquiry commission is created consisting of nine members. The Supreme Court shall appoint one appellate
judge who shall not be a Justice on the Supreme Court; the Circuit Judges' Association shall appoint two judges
of the circuit court; the Governor shall appoint three persons who are not lawyers, who shall be subject to Senate
confirmation before serving; the Lieutenant Governor shall appoint one district judge who shall be subject to Senate
confirmation; and the governing body of the Alabama State Bar shall appoint two members of the state bar to serve
as members of the commission. Provided, however, that on January 1, 2005, the appointment authority granted to
the Lieutenant Governor shall revert to the Governor and the Governor shall thereafter be entitled to appoint three
persons who are not lawyers and one district judge, all subject to Senate confirmation. The commission shall select
its own chair. The terms of the members of the commission shall be four years. A vacancy on the commission shall
be filled for a full term in the manner the original appointment was made. The commission shall be convened permanently with authority to conduct investigations and receive or initiate
complaints concerning any judge of a court of the judicial system of this state. The commission shall file a complaint
with the Court of the Judiciary in the event that a majority of the members of the commission decide that a reasonable
basis exists, (1) to charge a judge with violation of any Canon of Judicial Ethics, misconduct in office, failure
to perform his or her duties, or (2) to charge that the judge is physically or mentally unable to perform his or
her duties. All proceedings of the commission shall be confidential except the filing of a complaint with the Court
of the Judiciary. The commission shall prosecute the complaints. The Supreme Court shall adopt rules governing the procedures of the commission. The commission shall have subpoena power and authority to appoint and direct its staff. Members of the commission
who are not judges shall receive per diem compensation and necessary expenses; members who are judges shall receive
necessary expenses only. The Legislature shall appropriate funds for the operation of the commission. Section 6.18. The Court of the Judiciary is created consisting of one judge of an appellate court, other than the Supreme
Court, who shall be selected by the Supreme Court and shall serve as Chief Judge of the Court of the Judiciary;
two judges of the circuit court, who shall be selected by the Circuit Judges' Association; and one district judge
who shall be selected by the District Judges' Association. Other members of the Court of the Judiciary shall consist
of two members of the state bar, who shall be selected by the governing body of the Alabama State Bar; two persons
who are not lawyers who shall be appointed by the Governor; and one person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor.
Members appointed by the Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be subject to Senate confirmation before serving.
Provided, however, that on January 1, 2005, the appointment authority granted to the Lieutenant Governor shall
revert to the Governor and the Governor shall thereafter be entitled to appoint three persons who are not lawyers,
subject to Senate confirmation. The court shall be convened to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission.
The court shall have authority, after notice and public hearing (1) to remove from office, suspend without pay,
or censure a judge, or apply such other sanction as may prescribed by law, for violation of a Canon of Judicial
Ethics, misconduct in office, failure to perform his or her duties, or (2) to suspend with or without pay, or to
retire a judge who is physically or mentally unable to perform his or her duties. A judge aggrieved by a decision of the Court of the Judiciary may appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
shall review the record of the proceedings on the law and the facts. The Supreme Court shall adopt rules governing the procedures of the Court of the Judiciary. The Court of the Judiciary shall have power to issue subpoenas. The Legislature shall provide by law for the
expenses of the court. History History Proposed by Acts 1995, No. 95-647, submitted at the June 4, 1996, primary election, and proclaimed ratified
June 19, 1996 (Proclamation Register No. 8, p. 143).
Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 South McDonough Street, Suite 201
Montgomery, AL 36104
November 5, 1999