Archive for Judge

Pro-life leader says not to judge a woman going for an abortion

Posted in Pro-LIfe Action League, Sidewalk Counseling with tags , , , , , , , , on November 11, 2014 by saynsumthn

Eric Scheidler , executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, says that pro-lifers should reach out to women going for abortions with love by, “Offering help to a woman as she’s entering an abortion clinic in hopes that she will change her mind and choose life for her baby.”

Scheidler says that anger and argument have no place outside the abortion clinic contrary to what some groups believe. Scheidler says that there are certain groups that think women should be reminded of their sin as they enter the abortion clinic.

Now some believe that we have an obligation to accuse these women of their sin. That we’re somehow betraying the truth if we don’t bring sin to the forefront. But that’s not what our Lord did,” Sheidler says in a video he uploaded on the subject!

But, Sheidler says above all, pro-lifers should not judge these women, he cites Jesus as His example for this:

Texas abortion clinic stops killing after judge refused to grant temp order on pro-life law

Posted in Texas Abortion with tags , , , , , , on April 17, 2014 by saynsumthn

According to the Dallas Morning News, a federal judge has refused to grant a temporary restraining order against a portion of the state’s new abortion law Wednesday that would allow an El Paso abortion clinic to remain open.

Reproductive Services in El Paso had temporary admitting privileges through a local hospital that were set to expire in May, but received a letter from the Department of State Health Services saying they were not in compliance with that portion of the law. When clinic officials called the hospital that granted the privileges Friday, they were informed that the privileges were no longer in effect.

The clinic stopped providing abortions immediately and canceled future appointments.

At Wednesday’s court hearing, District Judge Lee Yeakel rejected the abortion provider’s claim that women in the area now face an “undue burden” by having to travel across the state border to New Mexico to obtain abortions.

“We can slice it and dice it any way we want and talk about the exceptions and differences,” Yeakel said at the hearing. But he added that the evidence presented to him did not satisfy the “full elements necessary” for temporary relief from the admitting privileges rule, which supporters say improves safety standards.

According to the Texas Tribune, there are currently six ambulatory surgical centers that perform abortions in five of the state’s major cities: Austin, Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth and San Antonio. To continue providing abortions, the remaining 22 licensed abortion providers in the state — only 18 of which still perform the procedure — must upgrade their facilities to meet ambulatory surgical center requirements by September, when the rules go into effect.

Man who bullied disabled neighbors is ordered to hold “I am a bully” sign as sentence

Posted in Bully with tags , , , , , , on April 15, 2014 by saynsumthn

An Ohio man whose neighbor said had called her an ethnic slur while she was holding her adopted black children, spit on her several times, regularly threw dog feces on her son’s car windshield, and once smeared feces on a wheelchair ramp, has been ordered to hold an “I am a bully” sign on a street corner by a Judge.

According to MyFoxDFW, sixty-two-year-old Edmond Aviv says that he ignored the honking of horns and people passing by as he held the sign as punishment in a disorderly conduct case.


The sentence stemmed from a neighborhood dispute in which a woman said Aviv had bullied her and her disabled children for years.

Aviv pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, and Municipal Court Judge Gayle Williams-Byers ordered him to display the sign for five hours Sunday as part of his sentence.

The judge selected the wording for it: “I AM A BULLY! I pick on children that are disabled, and I am intolerant of those that are different from myself. My actions do not reflect an appreciation for the diverse South Euclid community that I live in.”


This sentence made me chuckle.

Flipping off a Judge will get you slammed – Adiós

Posted in Outrage with tags , , , on February 6, 2013 by saynsumthn

Judge: School cannot force student to wear RFID which she said conditions students to accept the “mark of the beast”

Posted in Mark of the Beast, RFID with tags , , , , , , , on November 27, 2012 by saynsumthn

The Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, has launched a program, the “Student Locator Project,” aimed ostensibly at increasing public funding for the district by increasing student attendance rates. As part of the pilot program, roughly 4,200 students at Jay High School and Jones Middle School are being required to wear “SmartID” card badges embedded with an RFID tracking chip which will actively broadcast a signal at all times.

Although the schools already boast 290 surveillance cameras, the cards will make it possible for school officials to track students’ whereabouts on campus at all times. School officials hope to expand the program to the district’s 112 schools, with a student population of 100,000. Although implementation of the system will cost $500,000, school administrators are hoping that if the school district is able to increase attendance by tracking the students’ whereabouts, they will be rewarded with up to $1.7 million from the state government.

High school sophomore Andrea Hernandez, a Christian, expressed her sincere religious objections to being forced to participate in the RFID program. Reportedly, Hernandez was informed by school officials that “there will be consequences for refusal to wear an ID card.” For example, students who refuse to take part in the ID program won’t be able to access essential services like the cafeteria and library, nor will they be able to purchase tickets to extracurricular activities.

Hernandez was prevented from voting for Homecoming King and Queen after school officials refused to verify her identity using her old, conventional student ID card. According to Hernandez, teachers are even requiring students to wear the IDs when they want to use the bathroom. School officials offered to quietly remove the tracking chip from Andrea’s card if the sophomore would agree to wear the new ID without the imbedded RFID chip so as to give the appearance of participation in the Student Locator Project. Andrea refused this offer.

CBN Reports: A judge has told the Texas high school it cannot remove a student because she refused to wear a “Smart ID” tracking badge.

John Jay High School‘s Science and Engineering Academy requires students to wear badges with tracking chips in them.

Student Andrea Hernandez said she believes it conditions students to one day accept what the Bible’s book of Revelation calls the “mark of the beast.”

“There is something fundamentally disturbing about this school district’s insistence on steamrolling students into complying with programs that have nothing whatsoever to do with academic priorities and everything to do with fattening school coffers,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “What is more disturbing is the big picture, that this is a test project which may well spread through the country. We may soon see other students being punished in the same way as Andrea Hernandez.”

The Parents were defended by the Rutherford Institute

“This is not ‘the great economy’ like the U.S. economy or the economy of Texas, it’s the economy of John Jay High School,” Hernandez told CBN News in October. “But you’re still not allowed to participate in it unless you have this thing.”

The judge ruled in Hernandez’s favor. ( Original Petition here)

Meanwhile: The ‘hacktivist’ group Anonymous has claimed responsibility for taking down the website of a San Antonio’s Northside Independent School District in retaliation for requiring students to wear badges with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips.

The website for San Antonio’s Northside Independent School District was unavailable at times throughout the weekend and into Monday, reports

It appears that such RFID student tracking systems are becoming an actual market. The systems are popularly known as “Tag and Track,” are being sold to schools system across the country by a variety of vendors, including AIM Truancy Solutions, ID Card Group and DataCard.

Houston, it turns out, has had such a RFID system deployed since all the way back in 2004. Austin also has a program, but it is not mandatory. Baltimore’s school system has also deployed a system, and the Anaheim district is testing the system. The Palos Heights School District in Illinois has implemented the program with RFID tags attached to a student’s back pack. How widespread these student tracking systems beyond these and a few others is not clear.

It does not appear that these other programs have generated much public protest, with the exception of Brittan Elementary School in Sutter, CA, where a system implemented in the mid-2000s was uninstalled over some protests and legal action by the ACLU.

Beyond tracking in the schools, the technology allows a school district, for example, to send automatic “wake-up calls” to students not found to have made the opening bell – but some are taking the systems even further, generating fears from some about the reach of these systems.

For example, on Long Island, NY, Bay Shore students designated overweight or obese are being equipped with a wristwatch-like devices that count heartbeats, detect motion and even track students’ sleeping habits. Wow.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation has issued a statement warning about such a possible slippery slope.

“An RFID chip allows for far more than that minimal record-keeping,” the organization says. “Instead, it provides the potential for nearly constant monitoring of a child’s physical location.” It asks: “If RFID records show a child moving around a lot, could she be tagged as hyperactive? If he doesn’t move around a lot, could he get a reputation for laziness?”

Judge says ordering of abortion was justified

Posted in Eugenics, Eugenics in Massachusetts, forced abortion with tags , , , , on February 21, 2012 by saynsumthn

By Peter Schworm
FEBRUARY 21, 2012

A family court judge who ruled that a pregnant woman with schizophrenia should undergo an abortion and be sterilized sharply defended her decision yesterday, while denouncing Boston University for withdrawing what she said was a job offer amid the controversy.

In a rare personal defense of the reasoning behind a court ruling, Christina Harms, who retired from the bench last month after 23 years, said she concluded that the woman, a 31-year-old who suffered from delusions, would choose to terminate her pregnancy if she were mentally competent, chiefly so that she could resume antipsychotic medication that would have harmed the fetus.

“I believed then, as I do now, that she would elect to abort the pregnancy to protect her own well-being,’’ she said. “She would want to be healthy.’’
Speaking in detail for the first time about the decision, which an appeals court reversed last month in unsparing terms, Harms described the case as “a tragic set of circumstances for which no outcome would have been easy or obviously correct.’’ The woman had described herself as “very Catholic’’ and expressed opposition to an abortion, while her parents were seeking consent for the procedure.

In a letter that she sent yesterday to other family court judges in Massachusetts, Harms outlined the reasons for her determination and criticized the appeals court ruling, which she called simplistic and unfair.

The appeals court ruled that the woman had clearly expressed her opposition to abortion as a Catholic, but Harms wrote that “the statements of a person suffering from schizophrenia surely cannot simply be taken at face value.’’

Harms said she has requested a meeting with the chief judge of the appeals court to register her objection to the “insulting tone’’ of the decision.
She also stated that Boston University’s law school rescinded a job offer shortly after her decision came to light, an abrupt move she said could discourage judges from making unpopular decisions.

“It strikes at the heart of what judicial independence is about,’’ she said. “We need to protect judges from the popularity of the moment.’’
A BU spokesman said yesterday that the university never officially offered the job but acknowledged that it eliminated her from consideration for the job – a new position that would guide students toward judicial clerkships – after her ruling came to light and stirred public outcry.

“It was the reaction to the decision that gave us pause,’’ said the spokesman, Stephen Burgay. “The more we learned about Judge Harms, the clearer it became that it was the wrong job fit,’’ he added.

“As time and negotiations continued, it was clear that there were many factors that led us to conclude that it was not a good fit,’’ he said.

Donald K. Stern, former US attorney now at Cooley LLP, said BU’s decision was worrisome in its focus on a single case and the public reaction.

“It strikes me as a gross overreaction, and from a surprising source,’’ he said. “It’s troubling in the sense that you do want judges to make decisions free of influence.’’
According to Harms, BU law school officials canceled a meeting for her to complete her employment paperwork days after the appeals court ruling. A few days after that, she said a law school administrator told her she was no longer a candidate for the position.

Harms, 58, said law school officials explicitly cited the controversy at their meeting, saying the university could no longer “market her’’ as planned.
In a letter to Harms’s lawyer, BU’s deputy general counsel, Erika Geetter, wrote that although the law school had been “very optimistic’’ Harms would be hired, it had not formally made a job offer.

The school had reached a “legitimate conclusion that it did not want to worry about whether an individual who was at the center of a controversy would need to overcome that obstacle when serving as the public face of the School,’’ Geetter wrote.

The school concluded that Harms was “not the appropriate candidate for an outreach position that required immediate and sustained interactions with students, alumni, and the judiciary.’’

Harms said she began meeting last summer with administrators at the law school last summer, and said they ultimately created a new position that was designed specifically for her and that it was not posted publicly.

Harms said she and the university had agreed on a salary and a day before her decision became public an administrator asked her for a biography and a photograph so she could be introduced to the law school community. She said she understood the paperwork was a formality.

In a Jan. 30 letter, the lawyer for Harms, Joan A. Lukey, said it was “extremely improbable’’ that the law school would have failed to hire Harms if the opinion had not involved abortion.

Harms said she decided to disclose BU’s actions because she believes they were “antithetical’’ to the concept of judicial independence, and to explain to her colleagues why she will not be working there.

“It’s about principle,’’ she said.

The judge’s decision, which has been sealed, stemmed from a petition from the schizophrenic woman’s parents to have their daughter declared incompetent, a step that would allow them to be named guardians and seek a court-ordered abortion.

The woman has been pregnant three times, and had one abortion previously. Her parents have custody of her child.

The judge ruled in favor of the abortion, drawing national attention and raising concerns that courts were not properly heeding the wishes of those with severe mental illness.
Harms said of her ruling that she was deeply concerned that the woman, known in court records as “Mary Moe,’’ would try to harm herself during her pregnancy, describing the interruption of her regular treatment as “potentially life-threatening.’’

In overturning Harms’s ruling, the appeals court said her sterilization order was produced “out of thin air.’’ But Harms said she felt obliged to determine what the woman’s wishes would be absent her mental illness.

“Certainly, the easy road for me as the trial judge would have been to avoid this topic and I did find this the most difficult part of an unrelentingly difficult decision,’’ she wrote. “After much thought, the issue seemed to me to be too closely connected to, if not inextricable from, my “substituted judgment’’ that an abortion was appropriate.’’

Eugenics in America: Court strikes judge order of forced sterilization and abortion of handicapped woman

Posted in Eugenics, Forced Sterilization with tags , , , , , , on January 18, 2012 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Court Nixes Order for Mentally Ill Woman’s Abor…, posted with vodpod

Court strikes decision for mentally ill woman’s abortion
Backs rights those ruled incompetent

By Peter Schworm JANUARY 17, 2012
Earlier this month, a Norfolk probate judge declared a pregnant woman with schizophrenia incompetent and ordered her to undergo an abortion, stating she could be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed’’ into the hospital for the procedure.

Unbidden, the judge further directed that the 32-year-old woman be sterilized “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.’’

Yesterday, the state’s appeals court struck down the decision in unusually harsh terms, saying the woman had clearly expressed her opposition to abortion as a Catholic.

“The personal decision whether to bear or beget a child is a right so fundamental that it must be extended to all persons, including those who are incompetent,’’ the opinion stated, citing a 1982 ruling by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court.

In sharp words, yesterday’s decision also denounced the sterilization order, a directive that several legal specialists said they had not heard of in recent memory.
“No party requested this measure, none of the attendant procedural requirements has been met, and the judge appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air,’’ wrote Appeals Court Judge Andrew Grainger.

The case provides a rare window into the wrenching ethical issues involved in treating pregnant women with chronic mental illness and the delicate balance between respecting their autonomy and protecting their best interests and those of an unborn child.

Specialists said the Norfolk judge, identified in the decision as Christina Harms, overstepped her bounds, and praised the higher court’s swift and unsparing reversal.
“It’s a case that stands out for protecting the rights of the mentally ill,’’ said Frank Smith, chairman of the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Individual Rights & Responsibilities Section. “The record seems clear that she did not want to have an abortion.’’

Douglas Boyer, the woman’s court-appointed lawyer, said the appeals court “acted appropriately’’ to make sure his client’s wishes are heeded.

The case, which Boyer called the most agonizing of his career, will return to family court, he said. The woman is up to five months pregnant.

The woman, identified in court records by the pseudonym Mary Moe, described herself to court officials as “very Catholic,’’ and said she would never have an abortion. When asked about an abortion at a December hearing, she replied that she “wouldn’t do that.’’

At the same time, she denied to court officials that she is pregnant and has refused obstetrical care and testing. She became “agitated and emotional’’ when discussing a previous abortion that came to light, the opinion stated.

As a result, Harms ruled that the woman was not competent to make a decision about an abortion, citing “substantial delusional beliefs,’’ and concluded she would choose to abort her pregnancy if she were competent.

The woman would “not choose to be delusional’’ if competent, Harms ruled, and would choose to have an abortion “in order to benefit from medication that otherwise could not be administered due to its effect on the fetus.’’

She ordered that the woman’s parents be appointed coguardians to give their consent to the abortion and sterilization. The parents, who have custody of the woman’s son, believe that terminating the pregnancy is in their daughters’ best interests, according to court records.

But the appeals court concluded that Harms improperly decided the matter of the woman’s competence, and noted that a court-appointed specialist had determined that the woman would “decide against an abortion if she were competent.’’ Without conducting a hearing, Harms found the specialist’s report inconclusive.

Legal specialists said courts must base such decisions on what they believe the woman would decide if she were competent.

“The judge is not supposed to determine what is in the person’s best interests or in her child’s,’’ said Frank Laski, executive director of the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee in Boston. “The judge has to determine what she would do if she were competent.’’

Laski called the initial decision extreme, and other specialists said they believed it was an anomaly.

Daniel Pollack, a professor at Yeshiva University who has studied the issue of consent in such cases, said it is not clear how often such orders are issued.
“My guess is it happens a lot more than we know,’’ he said.

Still, courts are far more likely today to recognize the autonomy of the mentally ill than in the past, he said.
Because of the sensitive nature of the case, previous court records, including Harms’s decision, have been sealed. Harms, who a court official said retired earlier this month, could not reached for comment yesterday.
The plight of the woman became a legal matter in October, when she appeared at a hospital emergency room and was found to be pregnant. Doctors concluded that taking her off the medication would be risky for her.
The state Department of Mental Health then filed a petition to have the woman’s parents named as guardians so they could give consent for an abortion.

The woman mistakenly maintained she had given birth to a baby girl, Nancy, and wrongly said she had met the judge before.

The woman, who also has bipolar disorder, has been pregnant twice before. In the first pregnancy, she had an abortion. In the second she gave birth to the boy.

At some point between her abortion and the birth of her son, she had a “psychotic break’’ and has since been hospitalized numerous times for mental illness, court records say.

There is a disturbing history of eugenics being replayed in this story- learn more watch: Maafa21