In 2008, trial attorney Chris Nichols posted the following on his NC Trial Log Blog: "I've known Anna since undergraduate days at Wake Forest. She's amazingly fair minded and knowledgeable. Her knowledge of family law is a very important attribute for the District Court as the District Courts handle about 99% of family law disputes. Anna won the primary election by almost 10,000 votes over her opponent in this election. She'll be fair and hold everyone to the burden of proof they have. While her opponent is a very nice guy and a good lawyer, he's recently been arrested which I believe would compromise his ability to be a District Court judge because if he is convicted (his first court date is October 17th) he could be subject to sanctions from the Judicial Standards Commission."
Now, not for anything, but Mr. Nichols, according to his website http://www.nicholstriallaw.com/, is a personal injury and accident lawyer. I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems to me that an attorney who handles personal injury cases is a far cry from being an expert on child development, family psychology, and custodial conflicts.
Furthermore, from where did Nichols gather this statistical data? 99% of family law disputes are handled in the district court? Does this included appellate or supreme court review? Is there some other court - superior court - where family court matters are heard or reviewed? Is he simply making up statistics to dazzle and confuse?
And exactly what evidentiary data does Nichols offer to support his contention that Worley will be "fair and hold everyone to the burden of proof they have"? (As a former English teacher, I can't even begin to address the grammar issues with Nichols' posting!)
Finally, Nichols was concerned that if Perry had been elected, his conviction would compromise his ability to be a district court judge - not, according to Nichols, because Perry's character is now in question, but because Perry could be subject to judicial sanctions. Does this imply that consequences for poor choices are the only problem with making poor choices? Shouldn't we all believe that the poor choices themselves are the problem?
Nichols' endorsement of Worley back in 2008 smacks of the very verbal reality of which the public should be aware. Clear, well-articulated endorsements based on facts and experience are what the public deserves when choosing elected officials. Vague support wrapped around statistical malarky should be very suspect.
What we're all about...
Wake County District Court Judge Anna E. Worley, elected in 2008 and up for re-election in 2012, has been a controversial figure in Wake County family courtrooms. Parents' stories range from curious to downright shocking. As a custodial parent required to endure Worley's apparent lack of wisdom and seemingly arbitrary decisions, I am fighting back against a system whose very slowness and apathy has caused great suffering for my children. After nearly 3 years in Judge Worley's "family" court room, I have emerged with sole legal and primary physical custody of my three children. As thankful as I am for my own personal custody hell to be over, the years spent in Judge Worley's courtroom, the months spent awaiting orders rendered to be entered, the letters written to staff and the Chief Justice to force entry of a final order were nothing short of excruciating for my three children and myself. I will work tirelessly to ensure that I make the public aware of Worley's philosophy, rulings, and courtroom demeanor. Citizens must vote from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.