Must Maine Judges
obey the law, "like anyone else"? It is a vital issue that must be
decided by the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature as a result of this
re-appointment hearing.
1.) WE OPPOSE THE
RE-APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE JEFFREY MOSKOWITZ. We base our position on widespread
reports from informants whom we know well, who have experienced in his court a
repeated pattern of rudeness and disrespect, failure to follow the law, use of Guardians
ad litem outside of their mandated
functions and abuse of judicial discretion to operate by judicial whim. Please,
be assured, we are not here to whine about a "bad custody decision";
we are concerned exclusively with a judge following the law, which we shall
detail further on.
The family court
system is destined to collapse from a loss of moral integrity, if its judges
don't follow the law themselves. And, remember Judge Moskowitz is a
leader of judges in his position as Deputy Chief Judge.
2.) ATTACKING
WITNESSES. Before addressing specific symptoms of the Moskowitz court that cry
out for a formal audit, before considering re-appointment, we would
briefly like to strenuously object to the current public-unfriendly judicial
re-appointment procedure. It leaves out people with actual experience before
the judge at every step of the process. From the back room decisions between
the Governor and his
Judicial
Selection Committee Chair,
Joshua Tardy, to the
opaque negotiations between various players for who gets listed for
re-appointment, to the hearings before the
Judiciary Committee
when these re-appointment decisions have already been cast in concrete, the
public is a decorative afterthought. Re-appointment is almost exclusively
"private property" of the political leaders of the Maine Bar. Public
stay out; public shut up. There is absolutely no room for meaningful opposition
or other input from the public. This was made all too clear in the recent
unprecedented attacks on witnesses, who testified before this legislative
committee by Mr Tardy. Who in their right mind would risk public testimony and
face such attacks from the Chair of the Judicial appointment/re-appointment
committee? And for witnesses not to be allowed a chance to rebut Mr
Tardy's allegations by Chair,
Senator
Burns, was unfair and unnecessary.. THERE WERE POWERFUL REBUTTALS, firmly
grounded in the truth and in facts. We can NEVER, in good conscience, encourage
the public to bear witness about judges before Senator Burn's committee,
without some understanding of the Committee chairman that they will be treated
with normal respect and human dignity and that they will have some protection
from future judicial caprice.
THE JUDICIAL VETTING
PROCEDURE. The judicial vetting procedures for re-appointment seems based on a
survey questionnaire sent out to members of the bar to evaluate judges at
2 and 6 year intervals. This type of consumer survey is typically completed by
motivated respondents and ignored by others. Though it has more pretentious
claims, it is essentially a "popularity contest". Which judges do
lawyers know and like? Which judges are "lawyer-friendly"? Though
Tardy was unwilling to share the current survey with us, when asked, one
wonders about the ratio of questionnaires mailed out to responses returned, the
quality of responses, the number of "no responses". And the number
and type of negative replies? These questions are vital is assessing the
validity of the vetting survey instrument. Without a survey design that can
address such questions, survey results are statistically meaningless razzle
dazzle.
In the light of his
much publicized role in the
Great
Northern Paper Company debacle, we feel that Mr Tardy was an unfortunate
choice to lead the judicial re-appointment process. How can the judicial
re-appointment process not be tainted by Mr Tardy's unfortunate marketing of
the Great Northern Paper Company to the legislature - and its even more
unfortunate aftermath for Maine taxpayers? Ramming through a judicial
re-appointment by using raw political force and power, while discrediting all
public objections, does not inspire confidence. It is not a thoughtful, open,
public process for serious decisions about our courts. What kind of an
outcome can the public expect from such a process?
3.) 74% 'PRO
SE', AN INCONVENIENT FACT. We would remind you of a large but inconvenient
fact. As far as family courts are concerned, the divorce bar is a minority
group (26% of cases) that
controls 99.9% of the re-appointment process from start to finish. Where are
the majority 74% 'Pro se' in the
re-appointment decision making process? Isn't something out of balance? This is
a true blind spot in Judicial Branch thinking, in the Governor's
conceptualization of a judicial re-appointment committee. In fairness and in
connection with the actual reality of today, it needs correction.
4.) VOICE OF THE
PUBLIC: WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS ABOUT JUDGE MOSKOWITZ;
See
Appendix for
detailed quotes of various" voices of people" who have actually
appeared before Judge Moskowitz and who have shared their experience with us.
The thrust of the "voices" seems to be a repeated pattern of
courtroom intimidation - or what might in some cases be called bullying. There
are reports of a failure to follow the
Rules for
Guardian ad litem that is noted by our respondents so
frequently that one wonders, does the judge know the rules for Guardians ad
litem, or is he outsourcing a wild form
of total, 'ad lib', judicial discretion to Guardians ad
litem? There are reports of a failure to
listen to all evidence. There are reports of failure to present a plan for
reconciliation when custody sharing is uneven, and failure to respect witnesses
and consultants. In our opinion, these comments are a "heads up", a
warning to those involved in deciding re-appointment. There seems to be an
awful lot of "smoke" coming from this court. The "smoke"
cries out for a formal legislative investigation, an audit of this court. At
the end of the day, one asks, "Is this the "rule of law"? Is
this what Maine citizens want, is this what the legislature approves of?
5.) By your decision
about re-appointment, you send a message to the judiciary and to the public.
Will it be: we need to look into this further, or will it be judges can do
whatever they like. Judicial standards be damned. Public be damned; don't
bother your legislator. Mr Tardy and the powers behind him are
"lobbying" hard for a "no judicial standard" standard.
There are rules, but no enforcement, no supervision. It is all 'ad hoc' decided
by a committee of peers, if they get a complaint. There is no functional way by
which the public, taxpayers, may judge a judge or get a complaint followed by
"corrective action". There is, effectively NO protection for the
public.
Admittedly, the
choices are stark. There is a questionable vetting process, with questionable
vetting leadership, making use of flagrant suppression of any and all
opposition. There have been no public challenges to judicial re-appointment in
20 years. To do it with integrity requires that the committee collect its own
data, do its own 'vetting, make its own decisions. It is up to you.
Jerome A Collins
Kennebunkport, Maine
