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.

27 February 2012

Wake County Judge Investigated by SBI

Read all about Judge Kristen Ruth and attorney James Crouch.

The State Bureau of Investigation is looking into how a Wake County District Court judge handled 12 driving while impaired cases, Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens said Monday.

Stephens asked the SBI to investigate Judge Kristin Ruth earlier this month, according to an exchange of letters obtained by WRAL News between Stephens and Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby.

Willoughby wrote to Stephens on Feb. 15 about what he called "unauthorized scheduling" and "unusual judgments" in impaired driving cases. Willoughby wrote that, in all 12 cases in question, Ruth had entered an ex parte order that changed the judgment dates, effectively shortening or eliminating the driver's license suspensions for defendants.

In each case, the defense attorney on record was James Crouch, who Willoughby accused of misconduct in court documents filed last month.

In addition, Willoughby wrote, Ruth gave limited driving privileges in three cases in which the defendants were not eligible. Those cases were also tied to Crouch.

Stephens responded in a Feb. 20 letter that he planned to request a review by an outside agency after determining that, while "there may be a totally innocent explanation for this conduct ... I can think of none."

"If these orders were knowingly entered," he wrote, "they could constitute evidence of misconduct, including an attempt to obstruct criminal justice."

Ruth said Monday that she had retained two attorneys, who advised her not to comment. One of those attorneys, Rick Gammon, declined to comment as well.

Stephens has requested that she not be assigned to any criminal cases while the investigation is ongoing.

Crouch has not been disciplined by the North Carolina State Bar, but Willoughby filed a motion for appropriate relief Jan. 29 against him in the case of 16-year-old Henry Horne.

Horne, who was arrested Dec. 10, was given a court date of Feb. 13, but Crouch showed up in court on Jan. 20 and told Judge Keith Gregory and Assistant District Attorney April Flythe that her supervisor agreed to put the case on the court calendar for that day, the motion states.

In North Carolina, only prosecutors have the authority to set trial dates. Flythe's supervisor, Assistant District Attorney Steven Saad, never authorized the Jan. 20 court date, Willoughby said in the motion

04 February 2012

Steve Palme: "Preliminary Injunction, uh, there's no such thing."

Steven Palme, of The Palme Law Firm, gave an unimpressive argument regarding a preliminary injunction against a defendant, which injunction Palme's client had sought and obtained from Worley.  You can see for yourself that this guy is all over the place and anyone who reads the NC Rules of Civil Procedure knows this is just malarky.  But Worley bought it!  She bought it and moved forward with the hearing telling the defendant that everything Palme had just spoken was accurate!  Based on the CD recording of the hearing, here's Palme's unimpressive argument:

     I would say that a preliminary injunction is not an interlocutory order. It’s got no expiration date. There’s no further hearing on a preliminary injunction. It’s just gonna stay in effect.
     You know, there’s nothing in – uh, asking here to say temporary custody, temporary child support order in, uh, in the decree of each one of those that the findings of facts are, uh, nonprejudicial to either party. That the order is nonprejudicial to either party. 
     The preliminary injunction, uh, there’s no such thing. It is a hearing on the merits and it is got the findings in it. They are findings of fact and they are not going anywhere.
     It’s akin to a domestic violence protective order because it essentially restrains one party from doing something that the court has determined is going to cause irreparable harm and in this case have an adverse effect on the minor child. There are no further orders that go into place in a preliminary injunction. The only way to get rid of one is basically either to set it aside, a Rule 60 motion based on some error of law or fact. Or other things that are in Rule 60 in the Rules of Civil Procedure.      
     And beyond that I don’t think there’s any way to get rid of a preliminary injunction.