ThoughtfulMan

Comments

Who are these THEY people? Sounds like an alien invasion.

I am glad the court heard the voice of those who need access the IV-D Court (Child Support Court). The court had to believe that there was no adequate solution other than to issue the temporary judgment and Order the Court back to Gary. This Order is temporary, intending to protect the complaining voices from injuries that can't be repaired if they are accurate in their assertion of harm. A hearing for final judgment will be scheduled in the future.

April 03, 2013 9:53 pm on Lake County child support court must return to Gary
Meet the attorneys for the judges

Karl Mulvaney
http://www.bgdlegal.com/professionals/882/karl-mulvaney/

Nana Quay-Smth
http://www.lawyers.com/Indiana/Indianapolis/Nana-Quay-Smith-979897-a.html

Briana Clark
http://www.bgdlegal.com/professionals/781/briana-clark/

They are partners or associates at Bingham, Greene Baum Doll! Now the real action begins!

April 02, 2013 2:37 pm on High court requires mediation in Lake County tussle
Update: Three Lawyers entered appearance for Judges!

4/02/13 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY KARL MULVANEY, NANA QUAY-SMITH, BRIANA
CLARK, ATTY'S FOR APPELLEE (2) MAIL 04/02/13
ENTERED ON 04/02/13 AS
4/02/13 0009255-49; EMAIL ADDRESS PREVIOUSLY CONFIRMED FOR
ATTORNEY KARL LOSSE MULVANEY
4/02/13 0011648-49; EMAIL ADDRESS PREVIOUSLY CONFIRMED FOR
ATTORNEY NANA MARIE QUAY-SMITH
4/02/13 0027208-06; EMAIL SENT REGARDING TRANSMISSION OF ORDERS,
OPINIONS & NOTICES TO ATTORNEY BRIANA LYNN CLARK

April 02, 2013 2:16 pm on High court requires mediation in Lake County tussle
Here's my reply. Sorry for the long answer.

In the Times March 22, 2013 article "High court name Lake Juvenile Court caretaker" Bill Dolan reported that Indiana Attorney General announced it may join the fray and argue in favor of the use of the merit selection law. I found myself perplexed as to why the AG was not going to represent the Judges in the suit filed against them by the magistrates. I watched the video of the case against former judge Bonaventura. The Attorney General represented her in that case. Why is the AG NOT representing the Lake Superior Court Judges in this case? Hmmmmm.... I did some thoughtful digging to try to understand the duties of the AG.

Here's what I found:

Duties of Attorney General

In his friend of Court Brief in the DOMA US Supreme Court case Zoeller said "duty as Indiana Attorney General is to represent our state and to uphold and defend our state statutes when challenged". (Zoeller supports DOMA & prop 8)

IC 4-6-2-1.5 describes the powers and duty of the Attorney General.

Sec. 1.5. (a) Whenever any state governmental official or employee, whether elected or appointed, is made a party to a suit, and the attorney general determines that said suit has arisen out of an act which such official or employee in good faith believed to be within the scope of the official's or employee's duties as prescribed by statute or duly adopted regulation, the attorney general shall defend such person throughout such action.

My reading of the above statute suggest that the AG is required represent appointed or elected State Officials when HE determines they are acting, in good faith, within scope of their duties. The fact that the AG, reportedly, is not going to represent the judges suggest he has concluded that they are acting outside their authority. His decision to only enter his appearance in this matter to "join the fray and argue in favor of the use of the merit selection law" confirms for me that he is the enemy of the Superior Court Judges. It appears to that he is indirectly representing the Magistrates against the Judges. How does the Attorney General enter his appearance but not formally represent a party, very strange! Sounds like politics on steroids. I asked myself how do we find out what the AG really believes. What's his opinion in this matter.

IC 4-6-2-5 answers this question regarding when & to whom the AG must give his legal Opinions.

Sec. 5. The attorney-general shall give his legal opinion to the governor upon request, touching upon any question or point of law in which the interests of the state may be involved. He shall give his opinion to any other state officer touching upon any question or point of law concerning the duties of the officer; and also, to either house of the general assembly or to any legislative agency created pursuant to action of the general assembly, on the constitutionality of any existing or proposed law, upon request by resolution of the house or legislative agency, and he shall not be required to advise any other officer or person.
(Formerly: Acts 1889, c.71, s.8; Acts 1959, c.230, s.1.)

The Superior Court Judges must, if not already done, ask the AG to send his formal opinion regarding the statute re merit selection, & his opinion regarding whether the legislative branch of government can deprive the court of its inherent authority to create rules to administer the operation of the courts. The Judges should not allow themselves to be surprised by his opinion. Attorney General Zoeller is a political creature. He has already shown his colors. He can't be trusted!

IC 4-6-2-11 address compromise of claims that impact the State.

Sec. 11. No claim in favor of the state shall be compromised without the approval of the governor and attorney-general, and such officers are hereby empowered to make such compromise when, in their judgment, it is the interest of the state so to do.
(Formerly: Acts 1889, c.71, s.15.)

The Supreme Court was required to make the AG a player in the mediation process. If an agreement is reached that address the merit selection law or how to resolve the apparent conflict between the merit law with the inherent authority of courts to make administrative rules, the AG & Governor will have to be signatories to the agreement.

I can't see any agreement coming out of this mediation. The Supreme Court most likely will have to rule on standing questions, questions regarding its original jurisdiction & maybe the questions of law as well as constitutionality of the merit law. The Judges are good lawyers and theoretically may represent themselves, but they should be smart and hire their own lawyer. By no means should they trust the AG. Schiralli should definitely hire his own lawyer, his interest in this matter is unique. In fact, all the non-merit judges should hire their own lawyer.

April 02, 2013 1:19 pm on High court requires mediation in Lake County tussle
Don't forget about Judge Davis' transfer to Judge Schneider's Court. Bonaventura nor the Times complained about any of these prior assignments via transfer rule before this instant event. In fact, if Judge Villapando's letter can be believed, Bonaventura argued for Judge Sedia's transfer and assignment to Juvenile Court at the Feb 2013 judges' meeting. Sedia didn't have desire or seniority. He refused a part in this play. According to Judge Villapando, Bonaventura next dictated that all the Superior Judges stand down and give her control via merit selection. They politely declined. The show began. This show has little to do with "merit" selection. It's all about Bonaventura's desire to continue her control of 139 people & a 6 million dollar budget. It's about POWER!!

April 01, 2013 8:19 pm on EDITORIAL: Why mediation when state law is clear?
The Supreme Court is finding itself in a pickle. How does it make a judgment that will not negatively impact one of its colleagues? How can it fairly rule whether its own Order, the Transfer Rule it approved in 2000, violates state statute? Hence, It now joins in the dance, hoping for an mediated result.

I can't see a win in mediation for Judge Schiralli. Mediation will result in him being sacrificed for the survival of the transfer rule. He will always thereafter be seen as less than equal to the other "merit" selected judges. Schiralli's interest is separate & distinct from the other Superior Court Judges. He should have his own lawyer to represent his interest.

If Chief Judge Pera tires of this drama and choose to try to resolve this matter. The goal would be that the transfer rule survive and continue to allow for immediate filling of court openings. (Otherwise the rulings made by the prior judges that benefited from the transfer rule may be challenged.) The big compromise would be to concede that the assignment can only be to a "merit" judge. The compromised result would/could be the assignment, via transfer rule or statute, of Judge Dianne Schneider to the Juvenile Court. She started in Juvenile Court. The magistrates would be promised that they can keep their jobs. Juvenile Court continues to run as before. The court transfer rule survives & Supremes don't have to take sides. Everyone but Judge Schiralli would be a relatively happy camper.

I believe Judges have strongest hand. Judge Pera should not cave in to political pressure. The magistrates have a standing issue, and Supreme Court original jurisdiction in mandate cases is preconditioned on a jurisdiction question.

The magistrates cannot show harm. They have the same opportunity as all other qualified applicants to apply for the resultant judicial vacancy, after application of the transfer rule.

No jurisdiction issue has been presented for review. The magistrates aren't asking for a jurisdictional ruling but rather they ask for declaration of law & for injunction. The "Court" should stand pat and make the Supreme Court do its job. It's possible the Supreme Court may stretch the traditional notions of jurisdiction to include the question of whether Courts have the power to make rules that address the operations of the court but conflict with the judicial selection statute. If the Supreme Court goes down that inquiry rabbit hole, it will be forced to address the hard questions: separation of powers, equal protection & conflict of law resolution.

I now sit with my popcorn and watch this drama unfold.

April 01, 2013 7:33 pm on High court requires mediation in Lake County tussle
This show goes on & on ...
Billy why do you continue to insist that there was a contest amongst the judges? The facts are clear. The judges followed an established rule, approved by the Supreme Court. The transfer rule recognizes that all judges are trained to consider the facts of a case and then apply the appropriate law. The rule also serves to recognize dedication & service on the bench.

According to Judge Villalpondo's letter, former Judge Bonaventura was OK with the Rule if it could be used to her advantage. Now she wants us to believe that only the "merit" process can select the proper judge. Ha. Oh by the way, who leaked the letter to you Billy?

I agree with Judge Villalpondo's conclusion that Bonaventura is Arrogant. However, seems to me that he and a few other of the judges also have this horrid condition as well. Didn't Judge V. write the law that created his court then use politics to be appointed to sit in it. Wow, Jessie you really should look in the mirror.

March 27, 2013 11:53 pm on Judge's view of Lake Juvenile Court dispute is no love letter
This appointment seems to be a springboard for a State Office Run. Bad thing is she will be visiting ever county in Indiana on tax payers dime.

March 24, 2013 11:18 am on Judge outlines goals for new job as head of DCS
Something about this case has been troubling me. I researched Writ of Mandamus. It appears that Supreme Court has original exclusive jurisdiction only when jurisdiction of trial courts is in question. The rule provides as follows: Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Over Original Actions for Writs of Mandamus or Prohibition. The Supreme Court has exclusive, original jurisdiction to supervise the exercise of jurisdiction of all inferior state courts, including the Court of Appeals, by virtue of Indiana Constitution, Article 7, Section 4, and Ind. Appellate Rule 4(B)(3).

My thought is what jurisdiction question is raised my the magistrates. Jurisdiction is generally defined as the power to act. Usually this question is viewed from subject or person perspective. So jurisdiction inqueries are does the court have legal authority or power to address the legal question before the court, does it have sufficient connection to the person to require him/her to act.

The Hammond Times writers seem to be focusing on whether the merit selection law was violated. If the Writ filed by the magistrates ask for a determination of legality of law, the Supreme Court must dismiss this action. The power to take judges directed to Supreme Court can only be used to challenge whether they are acting outside of their jurisdiction. Indiana's Constitution Article 7 sec 4.

The Supreme Court may take the most broad view of the word jurisdiction, does the court have power to act, and review whether the respondent Judges had the power to create rules that aid in the orderly functioning of the court. But I can't see the benefit of that analysis if the decision can't address the legality of the Admistrative Order, which it approved, that allows for Transfer of Judges between courts & divisions.

So I arrive back to where I started. The Mandate Action will probably be dismissed either for lack of standing of magistrates (they can't show harm to themselves) or, maybe also, lack of original jurisdiction (the jurisdiction of the courts is not at issue).

All above are the opinions of one thoughtful layman who loves the discussion of law.

March 23, 2013 11:37 am on High court names Lake Juvenile Court caretaker
Well said!

March 22, 2013 11:29 pm on High court names Lake Juvenile Court caretaker