In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I)
November 3rd, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBackground: Conscientious Virginia judge James Michael Shull, who smoked out a woman who sought to extend a restraining order based on false charges of domestic violence, was just removed from the bench by this Virginia Supreme Court ruling. I have examined the evidence in this case and it is clear to me that Shull is being railroaded. The case provides a sad but excellent example of what can happen to judges who take their responsibilities seriously when adjudicating domestic violence claims.
Shull’s problems stem from a case which came before him on December 15, 2006. In that case, Tammy G. had obtained a domestic violence protection order against her husband Keith G., claiming that he had stabbed her. At the time of the G. hearing, the couple’s two young children, then ages three and five, were staying with their paternal grandmother. Keith testified that he hadn’t harmed Tammy, and that if she did have a wound, she had cut herself. Keith also testified that Tammy had committed a similar act on March 22, 2006, harming herself and then calling the police to report that Keith had attacked her.
Shull reasoned that he had to find the truth in order to protect the children from either a father who had stabbed their mother, or a mother who is a psychologically disturbed cutter. Shull examined the wounds and found that they were four nearly identical razor blade-like slices in two sets of parallel lines spaced evenly apart—hardly the type of wounds one would receive in domestic combat, and entirely consistent with Keith’s allegations that Tammy had cut herself.
Shull also examined the Wise County Sheriff’s Incident Report about Tammy G.’s March allegations. According to the report, Tammy “gave a statement that she had done this to herself to get attention,” and “admitted that she had self-inflicted her wounds.” The report discusses charging Tammy with filing a false police report over the incident.
Shull got in trouble because, according to the Virginia Lawyers’ Weekly, Tammy and Teresa Castle, the deputy clerk, claim that, in order to inspect the wound, he directed Tammy to expose herself twice during the hearing. The Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission “summarily suspended” Shull for "a substantial and serious breach of the dignity and decorum required in a Virginia courtroom.” Shull and Daniel Fast, Keith G.’s attorney, assert that Tammy had offered to lower her pants both times in order to show Shull the wounds. According to the VLW, neither side disputes that “the privacy curtains in the courtroom were pulled before G. exposed herself.”
Tammy’s wound was on her right thigh, she was wearing pants, and the only way Shull could examine the wounds was to have her lower them. Perhaps Shull should have acted more cautiously. However, his need to protect the G. children by ruling correctly in this difficult, contentious case vastly outweighs Tammy’s privacy concerns. Most importantly, no party in the dispute is even claiming that Shull made the wrong decision in finding that the wounds in question were self-inflicted. Shull’s conscientious pursuit of the truth in the G. case, for which he has been removed, was admirable.
To read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull, click here.
The Shull case and the recent Virginia Supreme Court decision are an infuriating example of how lightly our legal system takes false accusations against men. In this case, everyone agrees that Judge Shull was placed in a very difficult situation, and that he had to make a tough call where children could have been in imminent danger. Nobody even disputes that he got it right--and yet it doesn't even matter.
Both the Virginia Supreme Court's 29-page opinion and the widely-disseminated Associated Press article by Larry O'Dell ignore the most important facts in this case and are biased against Shull to a bizarre extent. In this series, I will discuss the claims against Shull. O'Dell writes:
"The court said [the most 'egregious' incident] occurred when a woman was seeking a protective order against a partner who she said had stabbed her in the leg. Shull knew the woman had a history of mental problems and insisted on seeing the wound, the court said."
It is unclear that Shull was in a position to decide with finality that the woman, Tammy G., had "mental problems." More importantly, even if he was, what did the Court expect Shull to do? Shull had three options:
1) Decide that since the woman is mentally ill, he's not going to subject her to a full effort to find out whether or not her husband really did stab her, but instead just give the husband the children. In other words, don't ascertain the truth, but instead turn the kids over to a man who she claims tried to kill her.
2) Decide that since the woman is mentally ill, he won't put her through a full effort to ascertain the truth, but instead give her possession of the kids. In other words, give the kids to a mentally ill woman.
3) Ignore her apparent "mental problems," and make a real effort to ascertain the truth in the case in order to protect the children. Shull did that, and it cost him his job, his reputation, and his retirement pension.
In the AP article, Larry O'Dell writes that several years ago Shull had "advised a woman to marry her abusive boyfriend" and that he got in trouble with the JIRC because of it. I have not investigated this charge separately, but Shull very much disputes this account:
1) Shull disputes his alleged knowledge that the relationship was "abusive."
2) Shull claims that his advice to get married occurred in a case where a woman's ex-husband had custody of their children and the woman wanted to know what she could do to improve her chances to get the kids back. Shull told her that social services would look more favorably on her situation if she were living in a more stable relationship, like being married as opposed to just living with someone. He didn't tell her she had to get married to get her kids back, he just told her it would strengthen her case.
3) Shull says that when JIRC investigated this accusation and others in 2004, his opponents' versions unraveled. He says, "These cases were dismissed not because of mercy toward a rookie judge, but because they imploded."
"));
19 queries. 0.422 seconds.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 am
In my opinion, the most important thing for the Judge to realize is that you can’t put a price on doing the right thing.
It’s too bad he lost his job and his pension, and that is something I understand completely.
What’s most important is that he’s happy with the man in the glass. The people who punished this man will someday have their reward and the Judge will have his. I would much rather be in the Judge’s shoes, than theirs.
Good going judge, too bad there aren’t a lot more like you.
Kevin Merck
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:07 am
she ought o have wore a dress to court ...........
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:54 am
I recently spent a few days in court and believe me, it is no fun place to be. I think a judge who encourages fairness and not simply "justice" is an asset. Judge Shull should be honored, not fired for trying to get people to think for themselves. It's very sad that the law leaves no space for intelligence, wit, creativity or logic.
Thanks for trying to make a difference judge Shull
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 am
Justice must be sold to the highest bidder.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
Um... this asshole made a woman drop her pants in the presence of others, including the bailiff. Inappropriate at best, perverted and twisted more likely. Good riddance.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
Tess Goodman Says:
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
Not even worth the dignity of a reply to the comment
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 am
Hans Says:
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:54 am
I recently spent a few days in court and believe me, it is no fun place to be. I think a judge who encourages fairness and not simply "justice" is an asset. Judge Shull should be honored, not fired for trying to get people to think for themselves. It's very sad that the law leaves no space for intelligence, wit, creativity or logic.
Thanks for trying to make a difference judge Shull
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
Echo . . .
I was just there as a juror in September
My hats off and GREAT job Honorable James Michael Shull we need more GOOD people like you and the judge that I served under on the bench!
For what it is worth you have my utmost respect for your unwavering character.
b
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 am
Tess Goodman Says "[Shull] made a woman drop her pants in the presence of others, including the bailiff. Inappropriate at best, perverted and twisted more likely. Good riddance."
He needed to inspect her wound in order to decide whether she was telling the truth or not. Does it bother you that this woman falsely claimed that her husband stabbed her, and used the claim as a way to take his children away? Don't you think finding out the truth was more important than her alleged embarrassment? Don't you think the embarrassment is her fault, because she was the one who tried to defraud the court in the first place?
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 am
He needed to inspect her wound in order to decide whether she was telling the truth or not. Does it bother you that this woman falsely claimed that her husband stabbed her, and used the claim as a way to take his children away? Don't you think finding out the truth was more important than her alleged embarrassment? Don't you think the embarrassment is her fault, because she was the one who tried to defraud the court in the first place?
This is all good sound reasoning that is “self evident” to any reasonable person.
The problem here is we are not dealing with “reasonable people”.
People who condone perjury are not reasonable.
People who deny citizens equal protection are not reasonable.
People who kidnap children for profit are better described as terrorists.
Kevin Merck
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 am
[...] learn more about the case, see my blog post In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I) or read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull here.Both the Virginia Supreme Court's [...]
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Glenn,
Is there any way, shape, or form that we can help the Honorable James Michael Shull through, letters, calls, or any other medium?
b
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Has this moron never heard of photographs and notaries? Is he even legally competent to make these sorts of injury assessments? He's supposed to be a judge, not a doctor.
He sounds like a typical dirty old man to me.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Varagos Suimtostos Says:
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Has this moron never heard of photographs and notaries? Is he even legally competent to make these sorts of injury assessments? He's supposed to be a judge, not a doctor.
He sounds like a typical dirty old man to me.
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
You are right and so am I when I come across a victim and have to do a secondary assessment by palpating a woman’s body checking for injuries and when I have to open her shirt and cut her bra off for any of the medical reasons that require it including saving her life . . .
b
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
So if you read the article you would have found this statement. It does not take a PhD to divine what logically happened with this evidence present.
So to you have a professional driver’s license? Then you should not drive.
Do you have a mechanics license? Then you should not change a tire on your car or do ANY other work on it yourself.
Do you have an electrician’s license? Do not change that bulb in your house.
Do you have an MD or PhD the do not put that band aid on your child or yourself because you are not qualified
Do not buy medicine for that cold, flu, and allergy because you are not qualified.
Do not buy those reading glasses off the rack at a drug store because you are not qualified to buy the right prescription
Are you a professional landscaper? Do not cut your lawn or plant any flowers or plants.
etc., etc., etc.
'nough said
b
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
opps the whole post did not go read below
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I)
Shull examined the wounds and found that they were four nearly identical razor blade-like slices in two sets of parallel lines spaced evenly apart—hardly the type of wounds one would receive in domestic combat, and entirely consistent with Keith’s allegations that Tammy had cut herself.
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
So if you read the article you would have found this statement. It does not take a PhD to divine what logically happened with this evidence present.
So to you have a professional driver’s license? Then you should not drive.
Do you have a mechanics license? Then you should not change a tire on your car or do ANY other work on it yourself.
Do you have an electrician’s license? Do not change that bulb in your house.
Do you have an MD or PhD the do not put that band aid on your child or yourself because you are not qualified
Do not buy medicine for that cold, flu, and allergy because you are not qualified.
Do not buy those reading glasses off the rack at a drug store because you are not qualified to buy the right prescription
Are you a professional landscaper? Do not cut your lawn or plant any flowers or plants.
etc., etc., etc.
'nough said
b
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
We're talking about what takes place in a court of law, moron. Whatever this freak of a judge does in his private life is not my concern.
A judge should not be forensically analyzing injuries as part of a legal proceeding. If he wanted evidence or testimony from a medical professional, that's fine. But there's no way this joker was competent to assess an injury on his own. Put this way: if Judge Raincoat waltzed into someone else's courtroom and started offering up forensic analysis, would it be considered valid and admissible? Obviously not. So why should it be any more valid in his own courtroom?
And no competent judge would ask someone to disrobe in an open courtroom, especially when photographic evidence would serve the purpose as well or better (and would be preferable to a cursory examination by a medical amateur) and could be presented in a way that would preserve the both dignity of the courtroom and the privacy of the litigant.
This old pervert just wanted a peep show. I'm glad they fired him, I'm just sorry he wasn't prosecuted.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Varagas:
It usually takes one to know one or to think it is the most logical conclusion in this case.
I guess if we didn't have the occasional troll posting we would get bored.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
She got caught in her lie and she is mad. That is the bottom line.
She would have loved this judge for inspecting her injury if she had prevailed.
She undoubtedly wanted to show her injury thinking the judge would be convinced.
Women can now destroy a man with a false accusation while hiding their own identities, etc.
Now, they can create injuries and conceal those also. Actually, they can claim injuries exist that don't. Why go to the trouble to create an injury when the judge is prevented from looking at it?
Was this woman punished for her evil acts? No. The judge who found the truth was punished. Very sick.
My guess is the woman was an ugly witch and the judge should get extra money for looking at her ugly ass (the point being why the assumption that looking at her ass was such a pleasurable thing and he is a "dirty" old man?).
Protective order decisions are often made quick. There very well could not be time to have a photographer, etc. The decision needed to be made then and there, very likely.
Would anybody condemn a female judge for doing this? What if the female judge inspected a male butt? Once again, we have double standards. I doubt anyone would think twice if the judge had been female.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Varagos, you ask the question "Is he even legally competent to make these sorts of injury assessments?"
Allow me to ask you the following question... What sorts of assessments is a family court judge legally competent to make?
Family court judges are charged with the responsibility of deciding custody of children, offering orders of protection, determining the future financial prospects of individuals in divorce proceedings etc...
Presumably for each of these instances you would require that psychologists, medical professionals, and financial experts offer their expert testimony before the judge can even begin to make a decision.
I very much doubt that you would be advocating that each and every time someone comes in for an emergency order of protection that the judge waits to hear the expert testomony of a psychologist before making a decision... in which case you are admitting that the judge alone is legally competent to make such decisions.
I think your only problem in this instance is that the judge in question decided in favor of the man after examining the evidence... hence he suddenly became incompetent.
November 4th, 2007 at 5:45 am
There's no reason a judge can't issue a temporary order until the truth can be competently established. This happens all the time. And even if you're comfortable allowing judges to make these sorts of expert interpretations (which I am definitely not--when decisions are being made that change people's lives, I want them made on the best possible evidence), there's NO way you can defend this rodent forcing someone to disrobe in open court. There are too many easy ways to obtain that evidence in a dignified, respectful fashion.
The "men" on this board are worse than a bunch of eunuchs: you allow yourselves to be blind to everything but your own misogyny. A bad judge got kicked out of the system, and all you seem to care about is your perception that his bizarre, arbitrary courtroom behavior was somehow "pro-man". A bad judge is a bad judge, and men, women and justice generally are far better off without him.
November 4th, 2007 at 9:46 am
"There's no reason a judge can't issue a temporary order until the truth can be competently established."
Issue a temporary order to give custody to whom? The father, who allegedly stabbed the mother? The mother, who had mental problems and was allegedly a "cutter" who may be suicidal? Those were his two choices, and neither one is unacceptable. Instead, the judge did what he had to do to find the truth and protect those children--funny how nobody mentions them--and he got it right.
Also, the allegation that he "made her" take down her pants so he can see the wound is disputed--some of the witnesses testified that the woman offered to do so, challenging the judge and saying "You want to see? Here, I'll show you!" or words to that effect.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I suppose my problem with your perspective here is that you feel it is perfectly alright for a family court judge to administer a restraining order without expert testomony... but simultaneously do not believe they have the competancy to deny one without expert testomony.
The way I see it, if they are competant enoughto do one on their own, they are certainly competant enough to do the other.
My position is that it should be consistant in both directions... one cannot logically declare that a judge is qualified to issue retraining orders, but not qualified to deny them based upon their interpretation of the evidence. They are either qualified to do both on their own, or qualified to do neither on their own.
As for him "forcing" someone to disrobe in open court... going by what was written in this article, it is not clear that any forcing was involved at all:
"'Shull and Daniel Fast, Keith G.’s attorney, assert that Tammy had offered to lower her pants both times in order to show Shull the wounds. According to the VLW, neither side disputes that “the privacy curtains in the courtroom were pulled before G. exposed herself.'"
Furthermore, you state that this evidence collection was neither dignified or respectful, indicating that you seem to believe she was "forced" to expose herself in front of a courtroom full of people... but there was a privacy curtain involved. That privacy curtain is used for the express purpose of offering some dignity and privacy to someone in just this sort of scenario. What do you suspect the privacy curtains in a court are there for in the first place?
Believe me, if I had any evidence to suggest that this guy was indeed a "bad guy" i'd be happy that he was gone... it has nothing to do with misogony or backing someone because they are a man. It has to do with the fact that the way this whole story is presented seems somewhat fishy.
The courtroom behavior here doesn't appear to be so arbitrary or bizzare to me... what is so "arbitrary" about having someone who claims to have wounds show those wounds *before* deciding that the husband is an abuser?
If you are argueing that instead he should have ordered her to obtain medical corroboration immediately and that in the intervening time the children would be placed with neither parent, that I could agree with... but I strongly suspect that your method of resolving this issue would have been to retain the children in the presense of the mother until *after* the wounds had been inspected by a medical professional at her leisure (i.e. whenever she got around to it).
November 4th, 2007 at 10:25 am
IT SOUNDS TO ME AS IF THE VA. SUPREME COURT BUCKLED UNDER SOME SORT OF MISGUIDED SENSE OF "DECENCY". IF JUDGE SHULL WAS SOME SORT OF DIRTY OLD MAN THEN HE WOULD HAVE WANTED TO SEE HER WOUND IN PRIVATE. BUT NO, HE LOOKED AT THE WOUNDS IN FRONT OF NUMEROUS WITNESSES.I PERSONALLY KNOW JUDGE SHULL AS HE IS MY SON IN LAW'S UNCLE AND MUCH LOVED AND RESPECTED BY HIS FAMILY. TO REMOVE SUCH A DILIGENT JUDGE FROM THE BENCH IS ONE THING,BUT TO RUIN HIS REPUTATION AND COST HIM HIS RETIEMENT INCOME AND HIS GOOD REPUTATION OVER SUCH A TRIVIAL MATTER EVEN IF YOU CONSIDER IT IN POOR TASTE IS JUST PLAIN WRONG ! IT IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF "A BUNCH OF LAWYERS" MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLE HILL. I AM SURPRISED THEY DID NOT "SUE" HIM ! THE CASE CERTAINLY SOUNDS FRIVILOUS ENOUGH TO DO SO ! I SINCERELY HOPE THAT IF ANYONE I KNOW EVER HAS TO GO BEFORE A JUDGE THAT IT IS JUDGE SHULL. AT LEAST I KNOW HE WILL BE SURE AND RECEIVE A FAIR SHAKE. PUT THE MAN BACK ON THE BENCH WHERE HE CAN CONTINUE TO SHOW OTHER JUGES WHO AREN'T AS DILIGENT HOW TO CONDUCT A TRAIL.
November 4th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
[...] learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I) and In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part II), or read my co-authored newspaper column [...]
November 4th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
You guys have amazing patience.
It's getting more an more obvious that V is getting his/her jollies by trying to get everyone (or at least me) worked up trying to damage the reputation of a good person in a public forum.
Oh and (s)he got the words "Misogyny" and "Eunuch" in on the same sentence. Well done.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:37 am
1. The judge could have adjourned to let the woman change into clothing that would permit inspection - short pants under a dress?
2. The judge could have required her to produce photos of the wounds for the hearing
3. The judge could have adjourned and got a doc to look at the wounds and report to him.
He should have seen this one coming.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:38 am
BTW, heard you, Glenn, on the radio just after midnight (7 pm, EST) in England. Cool and composed presentation, Sir!
November 5th, 2007 at 9:52 am
"Judge Shull admitted that he initiated an ex parte telephone call to the hospital where Giza alleged she was
treated, but asserted that before he placed the call, he informed everyone in the courtroom that he planned to do so.
Judge Shull maintained that “it is not uncommon” for judges in the juvenile and domestic relations court to place telephone calls to ascertain the truth when resolving a factual dispute."
Itseems that the judge is being accused of trying to determine the truth of the claims of the plaintiff.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:10 am
It's just shocking that the high court came down on him so hard even though it was not clear at all that he had acted inappropriately, given this concerned the safety of children and that there was plausible evidence that she offered to display the wounds.
Whatever the truth: "he's a pervert, she's a crazy lady, he should've done this and that" the most shocking thing is that even though the evidence was not 100% clear, the act was not really bad, the High Court destroyed one of their own. Losing his job and pension is severe punishment, comparable to a long jail term. Courts only act that drastically against their own if they are acting out of fear themselves. The High Court justices were sacrificing him to protect themselves from criticism.
Events like this terrify me. It shows why justices cannot do justice.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:15 am
The BIG QUESTION here is:
Will this Judge Shull join our movement?
He sounds like an accomplished attorney, a competent thinker, and a person who knows the full scope of the problems here.
We need all hands on deck, we need boots on the ground and we need leaders.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Will says:
Your 3 ideas are good, although failure to implement them should not be reason to have a judge removed. He could have for example, had a series or panel of 3 doctors issue an opinion.
Although-- I'm sure if he had requested a diversity of expert medical opinion, they would have accused the judge of 'pimping her out' !
November 5th, 2007 at 10:50 am
The woman acted like I've seen other people with Borderline Personality Disorder act.
Go to the extreme and challenge others to also be extreme.
Here make a major claim that her husband stabbed her and then offer that he looks at it. "Others" usually back off, but if they don't and call her on it, she screams "woe" if something comes out again challenging an extreme. In this case challenging the High Court to go to the extreme.
Usually "others" back off. Judge Shull didn't. He didn't think he had time to go through all the "alternative" procedures, which would have been better for his skin, but not necessarily for the children's skin. He had a duty to protect them. If he delayed a decision to get the doctors in he could have been accused of dragging out the case and further endangering the children.
So, the judge is villified for making a possibly questionable decision in expedience. She gets off scott free for perjury and false accusations.
Indeed, he would be a great asset to the movement. He's probably wicked mad right now and rightfully so.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Will, those are all nice ideas, but there is one problem that you have not addressed.
If they were to adjourn in order to gather further evidence, what is the time table of that information gathering, and what happens to the children in the meantime?
Do they stay in the custody of the mother or the father given that each was accusing the other of essentially being unfit (one being labeled an abuser, the other being labeled a self mutilator)?
I suppose a third alternative would be for the children to be placed in the custody of another family member or some state agency in the meantime... but I have no idea how feasible either of those options really were at the time.
I agree with you that he should have seen this coming, it is critically important for people to really try to cover themselves so as to ensure they are not accused of wrongdoing. At the same time however, it appears as if this guy was just trying to do the right thing and as is so often the case, no good deed goes unpunished.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Quite notable that the Supreme Court doesn't even mention the fact that mom's wounds were self-inflicted. Perhaps we should have just a tad more respect for a judge dong an amazingly difficult job whose "gut reaction" is that he needs to see the wounds and speak to mom's mental health providers?
If Virginia elects its supreme court, it needs to clear house.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
[...] the bench by this Virginia Supreme Court ruling. To learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I), Part II, or Part III, or read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull [...]
November 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
This judge got what he deserved and its high time more judges be held accountable for their actions! He had no business trying to play forensic expert. Any stabbing or acts of violence towards this woman by her husband should be dealt with in criminal court not family court. All the judge had to do was ask her for police reports, and evidence from the criminal courts where these accusations would have been tried. This judge was rightly removed for his inappropriate conduct and lewd comments.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
PS, Even if he had determined that the wound was indeed a stab wound, that doesn't mean her husband did it!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
The procedure in court should be to have forensics experts examine evidence. The state should pay for the forensics. If a crime indeed had been comited than the commonwealth attorney would have sought to press charges. The judge was acting within the scope of Virginia procedures that are presently utilized in that jurisdiction. I do not think he should have been punished for being diligent in his pursuit of justice.
Family court certainly needs reform because the lack of hard evidence allowed for decision making seems out of line with true justice. The standards in family court need to be raised and prosecutorial immunity for lying witness should be removed so that experts can't be bought off as they are now. As it stands one can commit perjury get a Protective order for any manufactured reason and not suffer any legal consequences for the cruelty. In fact some times the liar gets rewarded with custody and support after filing false claims against a parent to prove them unfit and avoid child support themselves.
The courts need to take this matters seriously and stop wasting our tax dollars on fabrications and distortions by family members with vendettas against each other. Laws and procedures need changes to protect the innocent from slander by family members. The emotional component within family court is charged with erroneous decison making because of the current guidleines and procedures which allow such abuses.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
The judge was sacked because of his lewd comments regarding the woman's undergarments and inappropriate coin tossing custody decision making. I bet if we look into his judicial conduct further we would see that this judge has treated fathers equally shoddy. It appears this judge does not take the important decisions that he makes very seriously. I am sure most of you here would be offended if he tossed a coin to decide your custody cases. How many fathers has this guy put the screws to?
November 5th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Tess Goodman Says:
Asshole --- perverted and twisted
Varagos Suimtostos Says:
Moron --- typical dirty old man
Moron --- freak of a judge --- Judge Raincoat --- old pervert just wanted a peep show.
Rodent forcing someone to disrobe ---
The "men" on this board are worse than a bunch of eunuchs.
Welcome to the world of radical feminism gentlemen, and please try to remember that you “eunuchs” are nothing but hate-mongers oppressing the “poor helpless women” of this world.
It’s very disturbing to think that these “women” may have children in their custody, especially if they are young men.
Kevin Merck
November 5th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I might be wrong about this, but I think this community in Virginia, is likely an economically depressed area, where it’s probably not possible to call on experts to determine the extent of the perjurer’s injuries. I think the Judge probably did what was practical under the circumstances to make an informed decision in this case.
This isn’t an episode of L.A. Law. These small courts in Mayberry R.F.D. probably don’t have access to the resources imagined by some of the commentators. This is not a murder case; it’s a civil case in “Virginia”. I think it’s more likely that the Judge was doing all he could and is not the “bad guy” some are trying to paint him as.
I could be wrong, and I hope Glenn keeps us posted.
Kevin Merck
November 5th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Requests for emergency protective orders arise suddenly and only have a 15 day duration in VA. The availability of expert medical testimony is very unlikely in that short time. Add to that HIPPAA restsrictions, etc. and the reluctance a physician would have in this day and age to contradict a patient . The criminal complaint is not a part of the hearing for the protective order/temporary custody request -that is heard at a different time. This judge was only trying to make the best temporary arrangement he could for the little boys - the case was continued until the next month when all of the above questions could be answered and the decision reversed if found to be incorrect. Since the children were without their clothes and necessities, he felt urgency to get them returned to a more normal situation. Since Christmas was very close and emotions run higher during holidays, he also felt that one parent or the other should be assigned custody. As it was, either parent could have run with the children. As it turned out, once the father had temporary custody and the ability to return to the marital residence,the woman had totally cleaned it out and the children continued to be without their clothing and necessities. It took the father a couple of months of paychecks to be able to set them up again. Since then, the woman has been jailed twice and most recently been indicted on a firearms charge.
Also - the prurient comment that someone referred to was not reported until 2 months after the case. The judge absolutely denies making it, and furthermore - there is no dispute that the judge was unable to see her underwear since she was wearing a long flowing tunic that came down below her pelvic area and as she bent forward to display the wound, the top came down even further on her leg. It was the bailiff who was briefly behind her and saw the lower part her buttocks when she bent over who alleged the judge made this comment for whatever reason. The bailiff was questioned about what happened several times within a few days of the hearing and never mentioned this allegation. This is a small, rural area and I feel sure that if the judge had made such a comment, it would have been all over the community immediately. This judge has absolutely no history of making prurient or sexual comments or any kind of improper behavior and has a reputation for being very patient and thorough and making sure that litigants in his court understand the procedings. I have followed this case closely and am just stunned at such a drastic result. A censure, at the worst, would have seemed more appropriate.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
In Virginia, an emergency protective order is just that - the hearing might be the next day. They have to be heard in 15 days regardless. Obviously, it is hard to arrange expert medical testimony in that time frame. When you consider HIPPAA restraints and a physician's reluctance, in this day and age, to say anything but what the patient told him, I think you can see that solid medical evidence is just not going to be available that quickly. The criminal charges are heard at another time - not a part of this type of hearing. The Judge felt concern that the little boys had been without their clothing and necessities for over a week and wanted to return them to some kind of normalcy as soon as possible. Plus, since Christmas was close at hand and emotions tend to run high, he was not comfortable to not designate temporary custody. Had he not done so, either parent could have skipped with the children and law enforcement would not have much to work with. Therefore - he made a temporary disposition based on the evidence available and continued the case until January when more information would have been available and the decision reversed if appropriate. As it turned out, when the father was able to return to the marital home after this hearing, he found the house had been cleaned out, so the little boys continued to be without their clothes and necessities. It took him a couple of months of paychecks to get set up again.
As for the prurient comment - the judge absolutely denies making it. It was alleged by the bailiff two months after the case happened. There is no dispute that the judge was ever in a position to see the woman's underwear. She wore a long flowing tunic top that dropped below her pelvic area, and as she bent over the lower her pants on one side, the tunic came down even further on her leg. It was the bailiff himself who saw her underwear when he was briefly behind her. He was questioned by several people within several days of the hearing and did not report this alleged comment. Given the nature of this small rural community, I feel sure that had the judge indeed said that, it would have been all over the town immediately. This judge has no prior history of prurience, sexual comments, inappropriate behavior. His reputation is that of a very conscientious and thorough judge who makes sure that litigants understand what is happening in the procedings. I have followed this case closely since it arose, and I am shocked at the outcome. A censure, at worst, would have been more appropriate.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
you people watch too much judge judy
this is not an isolated incident and should not be shrugged off as a "good guy trying to make court fun"
this is law, these are serious matters - where children will be raised
if your boss flipped a coin to see who got a raise you people would be b*tching and moaning just as hard
November 5th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
The coin flip was in another case entirely. It did not involve custody. Everything had been worked out. The judge had ruled that one party was to have the children from Dec. 18 until 2PM Christmas Day and the other party would have them from then until New Year's on alternating years. The thing they couldn't decide on was who would have which half of the time for Christmas '06. Neither party had any particular customs or out of town company that would have made a difference - so both litigants agreed to toss a coin to see who went first. The judge's position on visitation is that the parties need to be encouraged in every way possible to make these decisions themselves without having to come to court and litigate. It sure would be better for the kids. Obviously, he should have let the mom go first. If I'd been waiting in that courtroom for my case, I would have said "Thank God - let's move on."
November 6th, 2007 at 6:07 am
rich has a point. If the judge managed to determine that the mother was mentally ill or at least BPD then why would he have even considered that the children should be allowed unsupervised custody with her, based on a coin toss or otherwise.
However that fact remains that (family court) Judges everywhere are destroying lives with hideously biased decisions on a daily basis and it's only that he stepped on the toes of the matriarchy (or the "moneyed interests" as AP keeps arguing) in this case that he was made an example of.
As for the derogatory "you people" maybe you can try to tone down your bigotry a bit.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Varagos Suimtostos Says:
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Is he even legally competent to make these sorts of injury assessments? .
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
You asked a question I answered and I am the moron? Ok whatever allows you to sleep better at night...
Varagos Suimtostos Says:
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
We're talking about what takes place in a court of law, moron. Whatever this freak of a judge does in his private life is not my concern.
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
I never denied this was in a court of law and I think the points I made are relevant even if you do not.
Bernie Misiura Says:
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
You are right and so am I when I come across a victim and have to do a secondary assessment by palpating a woman’s body checking for injuries and when I have to open her shirt and cut her bra off for any of the medical reasons that require it including saving her life . . .
b
I also notice that you conspicuously ignored this point.
^
Varagos Suimtostos Says:
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
And no competent judge would ask someone to disrobe in an open courtroom, especially when photographic evidence would serve the purpose as well or better (and would be preferable to a cursory examination by a medical amateur) and could be presented in a way that would preserve the both dignity of the courtroom and the privacy of the litigant.
^
The photographic evidence you speak of was not existent and at the point of examination it was not an "open" court there was appropriate curtain shielding.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:53 am
If a Judge can't expect to view evidence in court I would think a doctor couldn't expect to treat a patient in a hospital.
The legal system is stocked with judges that obviously have lost their ability to reason. Such precedents are the real danger to our system and these methods of legislating from the bench should be halted as well as punished severely. In some instances, such as this one, the offending judge may require psychological help rather than punishment.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Let me clarify, the offending judge is the Virginia Supreme court judge/ judges who have removed the Honorable Judge James Michael Shull with their obviously poisoned opinion.
Points of law can not be conjoined to create new law as is so common among constructionist judges. This type of interpretation of law has virtually destroyed the constitution. One must wonder what great purpose there can be to opine such trash.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Dan Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
lewd comments.
^^^
Maybe I missed something but what lewd comments?
b
November 6th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Dan Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I am sure most of you here would be offended if he tossed a coin to decide your custody cases.
^^^
It was not a custody case, that was decided it was for who will have the children with them for the first of alternating Christmases...
b
November 6th, 2007 at 10:15 am
THE COIN TOSS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE - IT WAS ANOTHER MATTER ENTIRELY
November 6th, 2007 at 10:36 am
No judge is qualified to establish the nature of a wound. That requires a physician trained in forensic evaluation. What an idiot.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:50 am
JD Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 10:36 am
No judge is qualified to establish the nature of a wound. That requires a physician trained in forensic evaluation. What an idiot.
^^^
You are better than that do not stoop to that level . . .
b
November 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Concerned Virginian:
Thanks for trying to shed light on the facts in this case. I appreciate your effort and have had many of my questions answered.
Thanks again, and take care
Kevin Merck
November 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Kevin, you are welcome. You might be interested to know that all the complaints against this judge were filed by this one clerk. He worked a three county circuit, and was in this court only 3 times/month. There are no complaints about him from the other two counties, there were 50 plus letters from lawyers, clerks, social workers, school employees, former judges filed on his behalf extolling his good character and judging ability. The clerk filed several complaints against him in '04 that were dismissed because the JIRC's own investigation found them not to be valid - but then used those complaints to try to establish a record of inappropriate behavior. The decision says that the judge was not entitled to due process because it was a JIRC matter, but then uses the JIRC's record to make their decsion - thus - judges in Virginia are never entitled to due process, apparently. This was an assasination. Not only did they remove him, they just completely piled on to destroy him. He is 60 yrs. old. And, btw - he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer just a few days before the 12/15 hearing and has had to deal with that as well.
Please feel free to ask any questions - I might be able to answer them.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
JD said:
"No judge is qualified to establish the nature of a wound. That requires a physician trained in forensic evaluation. What an idiot."
Well, what if she claimed she was "stabbed" in the leg, yet could show no injuries? What if she claimed she was stabbed in the leg and showed the judge a skinned knee? Would you, if you were a judge, need a physician trained in forensic evaluation to determine that the skinned knee was not a stab wound, and that she was lying? The nature of the actual injury was completely inconsistent with the woman's allegation of being stabbed, and no one disputes the judge's finding that the cuts were self-inflicted. It was not even close. No physicain trained in forensic evaluation, or any physician for that matter, was needed to detemine this. I'm sorry JD, but you, not the judge, appear to be the idiot.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
What can we do as a group to show the State of VA that the truth this precious and required in making a true, fair and impartial judgement? I think Judge Shull's decision should be further validated and recommendations as to how to secure the evidence via photo by another female etc. might be suggested.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:25 am
The dad in this case is posting on a different thread - so it's interesting to hear from someone who was actually at the hearng. The mom will likely be spending serious time in prison soon over charges filed against her during the summer. Wonder if and how she can weasel out of that. I think a lot of the comments posted here and in the other threads mistake the purpose of the 12/15 hearing. The judge had no idea what was coming up on the docket - the other judge in the circuit had recused herself, and he was just trying to sort out what needed doing on a temporary basis. By law, he could not extend the protective order without taking evidence within the 15 day time period. The woman said her appt. with an attorney was on the 20th - court was closed for the holiday on the 22nd when the protective order would have expired - so - there would only have been one day to get this heard even IF the attorney agreed to take her case and/or was even available to attend a hearing on the 21st. So, the scenario was that the court would have been faced with trying to get a substitute judge IF the attorney took her case AND could get to the hearing AND if there was a substitute judge available as well. All of this was explained at Judge Shull's disciplinary hearing, but evidently made no difference.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Another one bites the dust! Pants Judge ordered to vacate his office! YEY!
They should remove the judge that allowed this case to go forward in the first place as well.
Pants Judge Ordered Out of Office
Reports last week that Roy Pearson would lose his job were confirmed on Tuesday, when the panel that oversees administrative law judges in D.C. had a letter hand-delivered to him at about 3:30 p.m., telling him to vacate his office by the end of the day. Although the ruling was not a surprise to Pearson, it is still pleasant to think of him receiving a letter giving him just 90 minutes to get out of the building.
Pearson, as you likely know, is now notorious for his failed lawsuit against his neighborhood dry cleaners demanding $56 million (originally $65 million, but revised to be more reasonable) for claims relating to a pair of lost pants. He has been squatting in his office since his term ended in May, waiting for the committee to make a decision, and continued to draw his $100,000 salary during that time, apparently for doing nothing. The committee's ruling does not prohibit Pearson from continuing to do nothing -- they just want him to do it somewhere else and are going to stop paying him for it.
Sources told the Washington Post that Pearson's lawsuit did not play a significant role in the decision not to reappoint him (which is unlikely). Instead, the committee claimed that, after reviewing Pearson's past judicial decisions and listening to audiotaped proceedings, it found he did not demonstrate "appropriate judgment and judicial temperament" (which is unsurprising) . The committee also said Pearson had been "combative" with supervisors and colleagues -- his decision to write a 14-page letter to the mayor asking him to remove the chief administrative law judge for the District might have factored into that one -- and had failed to comply with agency policies when drafting opinions.
Pearson is appealing the dismissal of his case against the dry cleaners, and may well appeal his own dismissal, too.
Link: Washington Post
November 9th, 2007 at 12:04 am
[...] the bench by this Virginia Supreme Court ruling. To learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I), Part II, Part III, or Part IV, or read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull [...]
November 10th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
[...] learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I), Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V, or read my co-authored newspaper column defending Shull [...]
November 19th, 2007 at 11:44 am
[...] learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I), Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V and Part VI, or read my co-authored newspaper column defending [...]
November 24th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
It's sad that one of the few judges who cares enough to protect the people of *all genders" before him has been removed.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
PS:
Tammy should be prosecuted as a result of her demonstably false accusations.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
[...] learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I), Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, and Part VII, or read my co-authored newspaper column [...]
February 27th, 2008 at 10:54 am
[...] target of widely-disseminated misleading reporting. To learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I), Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, and Part VII, read my co-authored newspaper column [...]
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
[...] learn more about the case, see my blog posts In Defense of Judge James Michael Shull (Part I), Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, and Part VII, read my co-authored newspaper column [...]