Liberal Judge to allow Bristol Palin & Levi Johnstons Custody Battle go Public. - Page 10

paco · #91 (**permalink**) 12-30-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpepper

Thread title

Too bad for you that you helped to sink the lie again.

The liberal judge is also the presiding judge of our judicial district, who just happens to be Judge Kristiansen's boss this year. Or haven't you figured out yet that the two judges are working in concert with each other? The thread title is correct.

Vanima · #92 (**permalink**) 12-30-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paco

The liberal judge is also the presiding judge of our judicial district, who just happens to be Judge Kristiansen's boss this year. Or haven't you figured out yet that the two judges are working in concert with each other? The thread title is correct.

Here we go again, so let me get the legal documents to show that this is a misunderstanding of the judge's power White and you seam to be having. The reason that Gleason made the decision against pseudonyms is available here:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/images...cs/palin_3.pdf Specifically on page 8

It states:

Quote:

The plaintiff in this action has filed an ex parte motion for substitution of pseudonyms in this action. Administrative Rule 40(b) provides in relevant part that:

The presiding judge of a judicial district may direct the clerk of court to substitute the pseudonym "Jane Doe" or "John Doe" or initials for a party's true name on the public index if the presiding judge finds that the issues in this case involve matters of a sensitive and highly personal nature, that publication of the name could expose a person to harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment, and that protection of the party's name outweighs the public's interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the opposing party. Unless otherwise orders, a party’s name will not appear on the public index while a request to protect the name is pending before the presiding judge.

Pursuant to the is administrative rule, the judge to whom this case is now assigned, Judge Kristiansen, referred the motion for substitution of pseudonyms to the Presiding Judge.

That is why Gleason was the judge to make the pseudonym decision, because she is REQUIRED BY LAW to be the one who decides. If the law allowed, Kristiansen would have made the decision, however, the law states that it must be the decision of the presiding judge, not the judge to whom the case is assigned.

White Night · #93 (**permalink**) 12-30-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanima

Here we go again, so let me get the legal documents to show that this is a misunderstanding of the judge's power White and you seam to be having. The reason that Gleason made the decision against pseudonyms is available here:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/images...cs/palin_3.pdf Specifically on page 8

It states:

That is why Gleason was the judge to make the pseudonym decision, because she is REQUIRED BY LAW to be the one who decides. If the law allowed, Kristiansen would have made the decision, however, the law states that it must be the decision of the presiding judge, not the judge to whom the case is assigned.

So now you agree that there ARE TWO judges working on the same case? I am glad you came around to this instead of thinking it was all Judge Kristiansen.

paco · #94 (**permalink**) 12-30-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanima

Here we go again, so let me get the legal documents to show that this is a misunderstanding of the judge's power White and you seam to be having. The reason that Gleason made the decision against pseudonyms is available here:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/images...cs/palin_3.pdf Specifically on page 8

It states:

That is why Gleason was the judge to make the pseudonym decision, because she is REQUIRED BY LAW to be the one who decides. If the law allowed, Kristiansen would have made the decision, however, the law states that it must be the decision of the presiding judge, not the judge to whom the case is assigned.

If that's the case...

Quote:

The presiding judge of a judicial district may direct the clerk of court to substitute the pseudonym "Jane Doe" or "John Doe" or initials for a party's true name on the public index if the presiding judge finds that the issues in this case involve matters of a sensitive and highly personal nature, that publication of the name could expose a person to harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment, and that protection of the party's name outweighs the public's interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the opposing party. Unless otherwise orders, a party’s name will not appear on the public index while a request to protect the name is pending before the presiding judge.

...then why did the judge not see the obvious media circus that leaving a case like this open to the public is going to generate? In this particular matter, I don't know which judge is the stupidest not to see what is obviously going to happen. The only obvious reason that I can see that both of them decided to leave this case open to the public is because of the media circus that it will create during their retention election year.

Pro Deus Et Patria · #95 (**permalink**) 12-30-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paco

The only obvious reason that I can see that both of them decided to leave this case open to the public is because of the media circus that it will create during their retention election year.

LOL... yeah. The OTHER "only obvious reason" is the presiding judge agreed with Levi's stance.

Big George · #96 (**permalink**) 12-30-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Night

This is so petty, political and vindictive on the part of Levi Johnston, that only a liberal judge would allow this spectacle to take place. There is no way that this could benefit the child in question. All the more reason that the judge should have kept the proceedings secret. The language the young man used in the affidavit was a huge red flag. One must wonder why an experienced judge would allow a 19 year old brat to determine such an important aspect of this custody case. Could it be that this is Politically motivated by the left to distract attention away from Sarah Palin? This idiot of a dad will do anything for attention.

The best thing Sarah can do is to just keep quiet on the subject. Her only comment should be: “It will play out in the family court; let’s leave it there.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...y/1401685.html

"Johnston fought to allow the custody matter to unfold in public, saying in a sworn statement that doing so would help put everyone on best behavior. He noted that Van Flein also represents Sarah Palin.

"I know that public scrutiny will simplify this matter and act as a check against anyone's need to be overly vindictive, aggressive or malicious, not that Bristol would ever be that way, nor that I would. But her mother is powerful, politically ambitious and has a reputation for being extremely vindictive," Johnston said in his affidavit. "So, I think a public case might go a long way in reducing Sarah Palin's instinct to attack."

Johnston said he didn't want to hurt or embarrass his son -- or Bristol. He thinks Sarah Palin, not Bristol, is acting with "sheer malice," Butler wrote in a court filing.

"He feels Sarah Palin, through her lawyer, under the guise of Bristol Palin's name, would run roughshod over his very bones," Butler wrote."

I don't see how making this debacle public is good for anyone but the tabloid rags and TV stations like TMZ.

We've become far too voyeuristic.

AnnaK · #97 (**permalink**) 12-30-2009, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Night

This is so petty, political and vindictive on the part of Levi Johnston, that only a liberal judge would allow this spectacle to take place. There is no way that this could benefit the child in question. All the more reason that the judge should have kept the proceedings secret. [/b]

It's petty, POLITICAL and vindictive to ask for custody and visitation rights to enable you to see your son and have a part in raising him?

It will benefit the child in question by allowing his father to see him on a regular basis and have him for overnight visits just like fathers all over the world do.

Are you willing to state that if you were involved in a similar situation, you'd just give up all rights to your son and allow him to be raised by an extended family that hates your guts and would slowly poison him against you over the years? That you'd let him grow up thinking you didn't care enough about him to fight for the right to be part of his life?

Quote:

The language the young man used in the affidavit was a huge red flag. One must wonder why an experienced judge would allow a 19 year old brat to determine such an important aspect of this custody case. Could it be that this is Politically motivated by the left to distract attention away from Sarah Palin? This idiot of a dad will do anything for attention.

Both Bristol Palin and this "brat" filed affidavits and motions with the court explaining their reasons for asking for certain things. The judge(s) ruled based on established law and precedent. You can read them here by following the links on the page:

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/1072008.html

Quote:

The best thing Sarah can do is to just keep quiet on the subject. Her only comment should be: “It will play out in the family court; let’s leave it there.”

And SHE should leave it there. She shouldn't be trying to influence and manipulate the outcome or trying to interfere in the process like she did in her sister's divorce and custody case. She should keep in mind that these court proceedings will be public record and her grandson will in the not too distant future be able to read.

paco · #98 (**permalink**) 12-31-2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big George

I don't see how making this debacle public is good for anyone but the tabloid rags and TV stations like TMZ.

We've become far too voyeuristic.

In a lot of ways, Alaska politics are a lot like Chicago politics. Every politician up here that can hop on the Sarah Palin Gravy Train will do so if for at least a moment in the sun. It's important to note that judges are politicians, too, just like all the rest of them. Any profession that has to remind us of how "honorable" they are, isn't a very honorable one, in my opinion.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bristol Palin: Just another un-wed mom now	Herkdriver	Off-Topic Chat	174	03-16-2009 11:15 AM
Bristol Palin: Abstinence Unrealistic	E_Pluribus_Venom	Abortion	221	02-26-2009 11:24 AM
Bristol Palin's boyfriend Levi Johnston quits job at Alaska oil field	superbadbrutha	Current Events	105	01-16-2009 03:30 AM
Is Bristol Palin Remedial?	Agnapostate	Off-Topic Chat	31	10-19-2008 03:57 PM
Levi Johnston: Bristol Palin's Baby Daddy Revealed	Doc Bunkum	Elections & Campaigns	26	09-04-2008 05:30 AM