community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
PA Supreme Court Election in November: What you may not know about candidate Max Baer
by Mary
Tuesday, Oct. 07, 2003 at 12:08 PM
mary@indypgh.org
for Pittsburgh Indymedia: You may have heard of "The Fighting Judge" or seen smiling teddy bear faces on lawn signs, but have you heard anything about what this judge has really done?
Family Division Performance:
Max Baer was administratively removed from a prior post as head judge of Allegheny County Family Division following a bad decision and repeated refusal to correct matters. In 1998, Baer allowed a man who had been convicted of repeatedly molesting and of impregnating his own daughter years before, to be a foster parent for a 5-year-old girl, in preparation for adopting her. Despite repeated requests by CYS, and despite the fact that such placement was against the law, Baer was not willing to order the girl removed, citing his conviction that the man was currently a good father. Baer was joined in his refusal to move the girl by then Common Pleas Judge Patrick McFalls.
(Read about this case:
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19980311bcys4.asp
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19980611bfive4.asp
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19980714cys4.asp )
Subsequently, in 1999, Baer was administratively transferred from his position as head of Family Division to a more junior position in the Civil Division, in which he has served since.
Criminal Law Experience:
In his campaign website, Baer purports to quote the Pennsylvania Bar Association: “While on the Court, he has served in the Criminal, Civil, and Family Divisions” (http://www.maxbaerforsupremecourt.com/max_endorse.asp ). What the Pa Bar actually says is that “he has served in the Juvenile, Family, and Civil Divisions”- Juvenile Court being a part of the Family Division (http://www.pabar.org/pbajecprimary03.shtml ). In an email, Louann Bell, Committee Relations Coordinator of the Pa Bar (louann.bell@pabar.org) says, “there is an error in Judge Baer’s website regarding the PBA’s descriptive paragraph and recommendation.”
The PA Law Weekly’s quote from Baer suggests much less experience in criminal law than does Baer’s website: “Let me say this—I don’t know very much about criminal [law]. I never practiced criminal law as a lawyer and I never sat in criminal court as a judge.” (PA Law Weekly, July 18th, 1994).
Administrative Experience- Family Division:
You may know someone who has experienced delays in getting child support, did not get mandated child support, or who was erroneously charged with contempt of court for nonpayment of child support, despite having paid. Although Allegheny County had a period of 10 years and 95% of federal funds to implement a modern, centralized collection system for collection of child support payments, it was not until Allegheny County Family Division was faced with fines and penalties by the federal government, that the system was finally implemented.
The judges of the PA State Supreme Court are the final arbiters, at the state level, for appeals of the decisions of the lower courts.
Whose interest does this serve?
by John Lacny
Sunday, Oct. 12, 2003 at 12:21 PM
Um, so are we now supposed to vote for Joan Orie Melvin? Keep the court more Republican? What purpose does this serve, exactly?
yes, vote for Orie Melvin
by Mary Hart
Sunday, Oct. 12, 2003 at 2:27 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
Well, since it's too late for us to go en masse and vote for Cheryl Allen (who would have been the best choice in the primary), Orie Melvin is a better choice than Baer. I hope you and everyone else will consider what kind of a judge Baer has been before automatically voting for him because he is a democrat.
Baer is a master of "spin". He basically got fired from his position in Family Division (technically, it may be "demoted") for doing such a lousy job, and in particular for calling attention to what a lousy job he was doing by making a decision that was unlawful and refusing to fix it, in a way that caught everyone's attention. That decision was just the tip of the iceberg-he made many bad decisions that weren't reported because of his relationship with the press (Mackenzie Carpenter of the Post Gazette told me that neither she nor anyone else of the PPG would *ever* write anything bad about Baer. Someone from one of the TV news programs told me that his station would never report on Baer in a negative way; that, in fact, the judges tell them what they can report on.)
As a Common Please judge, Baer was proud of the fact that his decisions were not often reversed. In at least one case that I'm familiar with, he told the attorney for one of the parties *before* the trial that he had already decided that the party was going to lose, but he didn't want to have a trial & transcript (and thus a possible appeal). So the attorney was told to get his client to agree to losing, and if the client didn't, and insisted on having a trial, he (Baer) would see to it that the client lost big-time- basically took punitive action for the client's wanting to have a trial.
And you think it's okay to give this guy more power? God forbid you should ever end up in court and appeal your case.
Call me naive, but I think a judge (particularly one who deals with family issues) is in a position to do good and make the world a better place. My feeling is that Baer seems to be all about his career, has a great relationship with the media, but is doing damaging things, which you won't read about in the newspaper; he did a lot of things that hurt children and families, but that he could put a good "spin" on (like getting an award for the most adoptions, while telling families who were foster parents- maybe taking care of their granchild or niece and getting the the financial assistance they needed to be able to do so through the stipend for foster parents- that if they didn't adopt, the child would be taken away.)
I've been a registered democrat for a lot of years, but sometimes, someone is *so bad* that they just shouldn't get a chance to do even more.
And yes, in the interest of full disclosure, Baer has been my judge. But, in fact, he responds to any criticism with, "that is just a disgruntled former litigant."
Yes, you should vote for Joan Orie Melvin.
Your Judge?
by Allie Kauter
Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 4:07 AM
hify@juno.com
Mary,
Max Baer has been your judge for what? Was it a family court matter, criminal matter, business matter? If you worked with him what was he like on your case?
I see
by John Lacny
Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 6:04 AM
> And yes, in the interest of full disclosure,
> Baer has been my judge. But, in fact, he
> responds to any criticism with, "that is
> just a disgruntled former litigant."
I just love how the interests of full disclosure are never fulfilled until someone actually poses the question. Here we have someone saying that we should all put a fetus-fetishizing judge on the bench (Orie Melvin is backed by the "LifePAC" of Pennsylvania, while Baer is backed strongly by NARAL) because of a personal beef this person has had with Baer in the past. Who knows, maybe that beef is legitimate, but to call for making a more Republican Pennsylvania Supreme Court is simply reprehensible.
Orie Melvin, by the way, has the backing of those physicians who want medical malpractice "reform," and is even a featured speaker at banquets advocating "the restoration of freedom and American values to American healthcare":
http://www.sepp.net/sign081803.pdf
In other words, if you get maimed by a bad doctor, expect Orie Melvin to keep you from filing a "frivolous lawsuit." The insurance companies are going to love this one.
Baer is against caps on damages in malpractice tort cases, an unpopular position these days given the insurance companies' propaganda offensive using "Code Blue" doctors as a front. But the right position nonetheless.
Of more immediate concern to Indymedia readers and posters, Orie Melvin also once pretty infamously filed a subpoena against AOL to determine the identity of someone who had set up an anonymous website that, among other political gossip, contained information about her that she considered "libelous." The person had to get the ACLU to defend against her subpoena. If you value the right to pseudonymous political speech -- a right that goes back at least as far as the Federalist Papers -- you ought to be very wary of supporting Orie Melvin.
In other words, whatever you think of Baer and however you voted in the primary, to support a Republican now out of spite is irresponsible.
no, it's not personal- to me, speaking out against Baer is like speaking out against war
by Mary Hart
Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 6:50 AM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
When you spend a lot of time dealing with the court system, you get to know other people who are in similar circumstances, you talk to them about their experiences. There are a lot of people who are unhappy with Baer.
The problem is, you THINK he is pro-choice. You THINK he is against caps on malpractice. You THINK he has values that are aligned with Democrats. Are you familiar with any rulings he has made? Are you aware of any of the things he has actually done in the courtroom? And you won't, either, when folks at the Post Gazette and the TV news feel that they have to get his okay on anything they write about him (and he's probably not alone there).
In fact, the biggest difference between Baer and Orie Melvin is that, while you may disagree with her positions, you know what they are. Baer will say what he thinks will positively impact his career. He will make decisions in the courtroom that he thinks will positively impact his career. The two may not have any correspondence.
Some things that worry me:
1- One day, when Baer was in FD, I was waiting in motions court. The person in front of me goes to present a motion. Baer says to her, don't you know you're not allowed to go to court without an attorney? He tells her she's not allowed to present her motion, she believes him (he's the judge), and leaves. He looked at her- whether it was how she was dressed, her race, his perception of her income level, and he pegged her for someone who wouldn't know her rights, and she was deprived of them. This was incredible!
At a later time, Baer takes credit for instituting a "pro se" (that means representing yourself) session for a couple of hours a week each week. That plays well- sounds good to the public- makes them think he really cares for the folks who can't afford an attorney. But it would appear to be for show, if he has actually refused to let people's case be heard when they were pro se. (Besides, limiting folks who are pro se to a small number of hours a week is problematic in itself).
2- The guy has said- repeatedly- "my decisions are not overturned". He is saying this in a way that is not just descriptive, but prescriptive.
I spent years teaching college, and one of the things I was supposed to do was to make sure my students were aware of the process for appealing a grade. This is the way things are supposed to work. I try my best to do a good job, but I am not perfect- I could make a mistake- so there has to be a procedure in place for dealing with that possibility, in fairness to my students. If I said, "I am never wrong, and therefore you are not allowed to apeal my grading decisions", I would be doing a poor job at my job.
So Baer has made a point of making his decisions unchangable- from telling people that if they insist on having a trial and a record, he will make sure they lose big, to not issuing an opinion on a case he has ruled on (the opinion being required for the appeal)- for YEARS. That's not an isolated incident that happened to one person, but it's been a common experience for Baer litigants.
Do we REALLY want a judge who throws out due process?
This is the grass roots- it isn't just me who has had a problem with Baer (and I hope some other folks are reading who have had dealings with Baer and will skeak up in this venue). And you're going to dis the experiences of people who have been in his courtrom, who've watched other cases, talked to other folks in the courtroom, and instead believe Baer's carefully planned PR? You can get that from the Post Gazette- why are you bothering to read IndyMedia?
Come on
by John Lacny
Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 1:33 PM
I think we're all quite aware that stalking horses for the Republican Party are just as capable of using Indymedia as anyone else. Many of them do it under pseudonyms, which is very annoying, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Indymedia's records should be subpoenaed by a court to reveal their identity. Which is more than can be said for Joan Orie Melvin.
Anyway, this stuff about how "at least with Orie Melvin, you know where she stands" sure is great. I mean, hell, "At least with George Bush, you know where he stands"; "At least with Tom DeLay, you know where he stands"; "At least with Rick Santorum, you know where he stands" -- why should we fall for this crap?
If Baer is that bad, give me some serious reasons why we should all abstain in this election. Hell, I effectively abstained from the general election for governor (I voted for Mike Morrill -- though had Fischer's defeat been less of a sure thing, I would have voted for Rendell). But to actively support the even-more-reactionary candidate is irresponsible. Disgusting, really.
There are far too many liberal-minded elites out there, all the people who backed Rendell against Casey in last year's primary and who put up "Democrats for Roddey" signs on the lawns of their spacious Shadyside or Mount Lebanon homes, for me to trust the pronouncements and political judgment of anyone who makes the argument that a Republican is better in a particular election. Hell, I don't trust the overwhelming preponderance of the Democrats -- except to be marginally less-bad than the Republicans.
The notion that I "only think" that Baer is pro-choice is asinine. He has said so openly, and it's NOT necessarily a plus in this state (if you've ever lived part of your life in the "T" -- and I lived the first eighteen years of mine there -- you know exactly what I'm talking about). He wouldn't be advertising it the way he is if he didn't believe it.
It sure sounds personal
by Anonymous Federalist
Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 1:37 PM
WHOA, Mary, it is sure sounding personal. You say it isn't and you say that you have had dealings with Baer in his court that supports your contention that he is unfit for the court. But you have not offered even ONE of your personal experiences in his court that support this. All you have offered is "hearsay" (that's legal for rumor and innuendo).
It is a lot different for Baer to say that he is not overruled on appeal than for you to tell a student that you are always right so they have no right to appeal to you about their grade. Baer's appeal record is a matter of public record. If he tells the press or anyone else that he is confident with his legal rulings and his record demonstrates limited success of appeals, then I fail to see that he has done anything improper. He is stating fact.
His statement to anyone that he is rarely (or as you say, "never") overruled DOES NOT deny that person the right to appeal. That right always exists. If they believe an appealable error has occurred they can still pursue the appeal regardless of Baer's personal assertions of his legal competence.
As for the woman that you say Baer denied her the right of self-representation .... I suspect that you do not have all of the facts. You overheard a singular conversation (if in fact you did hear it said in that way). How do you know that Baer did not do this woman a favor of justice by preventing her from presenting a possible inconceived, improperly analyzed, or legally deficient motion without the assistance of counsel. It may be that if she had proceeded with the motion she could have lost the ability to revisit an important issue later in the proceedings. By refering her to counsel (which is available to anyone in family division through any number of worthy agencies of charity or the bar association) Max Baer may have well protected this person's rights and legal position. Just because everyone has the right to pro se representation does not mean that such is in the person's best interests (whether they realize it or not).
You have accused Baer (again based on hearsay) of manipulating an outcome to avoid an appeal right or the existence of a transcript. You basically have accused him of violating the rules of professional responsibility for judges. It is difficult to believe such an outrageous assertion. It is even more difficult to believe that any lawyer worth the cost of a law degree would permit their client to enter into such an arrangement. A possible alternative here might be that (again) Baer may have worked a benefit for the litigant in that matter, allowing them to avoid the penalties of having ineffective counsel and creating a record which might clearly have demonstrated the deficiencies of their case as presented by more skilled opposing counsel. However, speculation in the multitude of alternatives to your incomplete presentation is not necessary, since your assertions are nothing but unsubstantiated ill-thought repetition of hearsay, rumor and (it seems) personally biased interpretations of limited observations and information.
I am curious, are you a lawyer Mary? Do you understand any of the workings of the court system that you are so critical of now? Why is it offensive to you that Max Baer would put together a pro se clinic to foster greater understanding of the courts and legal procedure for pro se litigants? Remember, when you are a pro se litigant you have no one but yourself to blame for your loss in court. Not the judge, not the court system, not Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. No one but you is tasked with understanding the rather arcane rules of legal procedure. No one but you is required to articulate your case before the court. Pro Se litigants are well advised to take Max Baer's class and are fortunate to have someone to take the time to provide this insight into the legal system. Do you think that anyone can just walk into court and be a Johnny Cochran?
It sure sounds to me like you have some personal ax to grind here. So personal that you would throw in with an ardent right-winger. The AOL case that another poster referred to should be enough to keep you and IMC on your collective toes on this one. Or do you think that you will successfully work a pro se defense when it is your computer logs that are being subpeonaed?
federalist & other skeptics
by Mary
Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 2:57 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
"His statement to anyone that he is rarely (or as you say, "never") overruled DOES NOT deny that person the right to appeal."
The judge makes a decision, writes and order and issues an opinion. This is the way it is supposed to work. If you wish to appeal the judge's decision, you appeal based on the judge's opinion. You are legally required to submit a copy of the judge's opinion with your appeal. If you don't have the opinion, you can not appeal. If the judge fails to produce the opinion for several years, that is not a matter of expressing confidence in his opinion. That is depriving one of one's right to to appeal. (It's happened to a number of people besides me. It's possible to look through case records and not the dates of orders and opinions and the time intervening in Baer's cases.)
If the judge does not *allow* you to appear pro se and intentionally misinforms you and tells you pro se representation is not allowed, then you have been deprived of your right to have your day in court.
And I think it is problematic when your actions in court as a judge are diametrically opposed to what you put out as PR for campaign purposes. As a voter, wouldn't you rather know what the guy does rather than what he says if they are different? (And wouldn't you want to know that they are different?)
You've complained both that I haven't given you specifics of my case, and that this is personal. I could give you lots of specifics about my case, but what is frightening about Baer is that he has done similar things in many cases- it's not something that is just a problem for me. Local advocacy groups such as NCFC (Pgh chapter), CAN, Cooperative Parenting for Divided Families, and ACES have collections of horror stories about Family Division in general and Baer in particular, as do caseworkers and various folks who work in the system.
I have been represented by attorneys most of the time I spent dealing with FD and am fairly knowledgeable about how it works, which I would say is substantially different from how it is supposed to work and how people who have not had direct experience with the court system think it works. My experience with how broken the court system is (and in particular that section of it which was headed by Baer) makes me even more skeptical of the death penalty, because the courts work so poorly.
I admit that there is a certain irony in using IndyMedia to post in favor of Orie Melvin. (Of course, I'm posting under my own name and with my legitimate email address- no one will have to take IndyMedia to court in an attempt to find out who posted against Baer.) The sad thing is that people see the problem with Orie Melvin and free speech, and assume that Baer must stand for the opposite.
So here is a question: I follow stories about the local courts in whatever media I can find them in. Other folks who do so as well will note that the PG regularly runs stories about problems in the Beaver County courts (where, as per Amanda Kolle's and other recent cases if you are, say, an attorney who wishes to adopt a baby, you can ask the judge to terminate the parental rights of someone who has few resources to fight this.) Does the fact that we read much less in the way of stories like this wrt Allegheny County convince you that there are no such problems in Allegheny County, that things work well in the court system here, and there aren't any problems?
I think the fact that Mackenzie Carpenter checks with Baer as to what she can write and would never write anything bad about him- those are her words to me- leaving you thinking that Baer is fine, is a way bigger problem than Orie Melvin. When Orie Melvin sued, you knew what was going on and could judge her accordingly. With Baer, you know just what he wants you to know. And you don't even know you're being manipulated.
But you can find out more.
I'm happy to discuss details off-list, and the groups mentioned above all have websites, email, and will undoubtedly be happy to talk as well.
M
by voter
Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 3:19 PM
>I've been a registered democrat for a lot of years
That, alone, is reason enough for me not to believe you. Even more so if you said you were a memeber of the Green Party.
Supreme Court Judges are to Learned Jurists
by Kevin Sheahen
Monday, Oct. 13, 2003 at 6:38 PM
pghdads@aol.com
Most of the comments to this subject are missing the point of the importance of having a learned person on the Supreme Court Bench.
Max Baer is definitly not a learned jurist. A learned jurist will review all the pertinent facts, case law, statutes, the Constitution and listen to the opinions of the other judges. Max Baer has stated proudly that he can make a decision on a case in less than two minutes. So much for great thought and consideration.
Is Judge Orie Melvin a more learned jurist?
I have presented a case in front of both judges. Max Baer in Family Court and Judge Melvin in Superior Court while appealing a two minute decision made by Judge Baer. In that case, Judge Baer filed his written opinion after both parties submitted their briefs. (a contradiction of PA Appeallate Procedure)
I know that American and Pennsylvania judicial review will suffer with Max Baer on the Supreme Court bench. His track record proves it. (Look at Allegheny County Family Division and the large number of children who have had a one parentectomy.)
I know Max Baer's judicial procedures and they would make wonder if the US Constitution applies in his courtroom.
No, it is not a Republican or Democrat issue. I do not care what party our Supreme Court justice is a part of. I do care if we are placing another Justice Larson as Max Baer will be if elected into the PA Supreme Court.
Similar to what?
by Anonymous Federalist
Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003 at 6:26 AM
Mary, you are still trying to mislead everyone with your hearsay and emotional hellfire. You say that many people have had experiences similar to yours, but you never provide any description of your experience. You have not provided any first-hand information, only second, third etc. - hand information.
I think that it is very clear form your discussion though that you clearly do not have any understanding of legal procedure and would do very well to never represent yourself in court. Appeals can be taken from any lower court determination upon a showing of an appealable error. A demonstration of bias by a judge or the entry of an order contrary to law or unsupported by fact would be appealable. However, judges do not issue opinions for every order or decision made. This is not any abdication of Constitutional principles. Many orders are entered in the course of a case prior to the final disposition of the case. These orders are typically not ripe for appeal since they are "interlocutory" (meaning that they are a decision given in the process of the entire issue before the court and typically can not be examined outside of the context of the main case). Although it is possible to appeal an interlocutory order, the standard for appeal is higher than for an appeal of a final order. An appealable error related to an interlocutory ruling creates grounds for appeal of the final order. Thus, the right to appeal is preserved.
In every court case there is usually a winner and a loser. But in every court case the loser is not universally being denying some fundamental rights. More likely the loser did not have good legal representation (maybe they were pro se), the law did not support the loser's position, the facts were clearly not on the side of the loser, or the loser failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of the court system.
Your claim that sending a pro se litigant to seek legal counsel somehow denies them their day in court is incorrect (and is also, by your own admission, based solely on your transient contact with that particular case). In the case you describe, and given the generally emotional and vitally important issues determined by the FD, it is very likely that Judge Baer did this person a favor. The Judges generally allow pro se litigants a great deal of latitude in presenting their cases, but the Judges are limited in how much latitude they can extend in the court room before it begins to look like favoritism or can even create appealable error for the opposing party. I have seen situations where a Judge has actually declared a mistrial after both parties presented their cases because a pro se litigant’s performance was so bad and the Judge did not want to enter the order against the pro se litigant that the proceeding would have demanded. In those situations I believe it would be fair for the pro se litigant’s opposing party to claim that the Judge ruled unfairly against them causing them to have to expend more time and money to again present their case after the pro se litigant finally decided to get counsel. But did that Judge really “deny” the pro se litigant anything.
It is fine that you don’t care about having your postings and emails subpoenaed, but that is a pretty convenient and self-serving sentiment. Besides, it is not your emails and computer records that we apparently need to protect. Will your brash sentiments about the disregard for privacy be the same when it is the records of IMC that are sought. I would wager that your position would be the complete opposite (unless the records sought were those of some of the unfortunate persons here who have the audacity to post any message that you find personally or politically offensive).
To condemn Max Baer based upon your limited exposure to, and flawed understanding of, the court system is unfair, intellectually dishonest, and simply absurd, especially when you suggest that we should all support a right-winger. It is more absurd and offensive when you suggest that we should do this to support your own contempt for Judge Baer and to justify your frustration with your own apparent performance in the court system. Maybe you should have gone to Judge Baer's pro se clinic before you attempted to show the world that you are smarter than everyone else (at your own expenses, too, which makes it far less bright than you would like to believe you were).
Move to the mountains far from the complexities of modern life, buy a stone wheel, sit on the front porch all day long, and grind that ax all you want. But don't try to rope all of us into your personal vendetta.
Animal
by Rights
Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003 at 6:49 AM
"Here we have someone saying that we should all put a fetus-fetishizing judge on the bench...."
Appoint someone that shows concern about the rights of unborn children? What a bunch of crap. When's the next animal rights demonstration?
Fetuses
by 3lefts
Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003 at 7:17 AM
Pro-life, until the cord is cut, then you're fucked
federalist- yes, there is a violation of contitutional rights
by Mary
Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003 at 12:36 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
When you take someone who attempts to appear in motions court (which you may be unfamiliar with) pro se and tell them that they are not allowed to, you are violating their rights. The judge did not suggest that it would be in the person's best interests to seek an attorney. The judge refused to hear to motion. The person apparently did not have the money for an attorney. There are not court-appointed attorneys at no cost for FD and Legal Aid does not handle FD cases. Thus, the person was deprived of the right to have a case heard in court.
I have a good understanding of court procedure- how things should work- as well as a realistic understanding of how in fact they do work, gained from experience. I can only assume that you have little actual experience with the court system and with FD in particular- thus your ignorance.
I have given several instances from my case as well as instances from others. Why don't I tell you more about my case? Well, I have offered to discuss specifics with anyone via email- there is no reason to post everything that has happened to me on a public venue at the suggestion of some hostile person.
If this is just a personal vendetta and there is nothing wrong with the guy, why was he removed from his position in FD and demoted? Must have been some effective vendetta...
You seem to know something about Orie Melvins' views. You shold probably find out something about Baer before you go to such lengths to defend him (and something real, not a press release issued by Baer).
Thanks Mary
by ACLU-er
Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003 at 2:32 PM
If Judge Baer refused to hear this woman's properly prepared motion on a pending case, and without any reason but that he didn't want to hear her motion, then she may have had her rights abridged. There are organizations that would take this matter on her behalf. She should contact the ACLU, the District Attorney, the United Sates Attorney, and/or the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics. Just in case anyone else is ever faced with an issue in FD and requires legal assistance, the Allegheny County Bar Association can direct you to appropriate assistance. If it is a child advocacy matter you can try Neighborhood legal services or KidsVoice (of The Guardian fame). You are correct that there are not court appointed attorneys for the Civil or Family Division. However, there are many organizations that provide pro bono or extremely discounted legal services for these cases. Certain types of Civil and Family matters will be taken on or assisted by organizations such as ProArts, Jewish Family & Children Services, PATF, PAAR, Persad, Pa Elder Law Project, and many other similar organizations (some of which are affiliated with the local law schools).
Do you know if this person filed any complaint about the Judge's conduct? Did you file any complaint about Max Baer?
complaints
by Mary
Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003 at 3:03 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
I didn't know the person. My guess is that she did not file any kind of complaint... she seemed to believe the judge.
The last I heard, Neigborhood Legal Services did *not* accept any cases involving custody, which is where some of the most egregious cases are.
I have filed complaints in the past with the Judicial Conduct Board (I may not have the name exactly right), as have several other people I know of, but, with the notable recent exceptions of McFalls and Jaffe, the impression we've gotten is that they ask you to refrain from discussing it with anyone while they investigate, and they get back to you a year or so later and say they've determined there wasn't a problem.
I don't have a way of identifying that person, but I know of at least one other person besides myself who was hindered from appealing a decision by the judge taking between one and two years to provide an opinion. Another concern for me was getting heavy pressure from the judge to sign off on something rather than go through with a trial & generate a transcript and thus make an appeal possible...I was threatened with punitive action if there was a trial.
If either of those would be of interest to the ACLU, I'd be happy to talk to someone.
BTW, if you're with the local ACLU, I applaud the work you're doing (including the Orie Melvin case), and in particular the work on behalf of folks involved with the court system in Beaver County. Things that have happened to Amanda Kolle and others have been a travesty...and my feeling is that things just as bad are happening in Allegheny County, but Allegheny County has some folks who are more sophisticated at spin and have better relationships with the media.
Judge Baer Not Ready For Prime Time Live
by Clare Voiant
Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2003 at 4:40 AM
The Superior Court on appeal will ONLY overturn a judge’s decision if it is an egregious abuse of discretion as they did with Judge Baer’s decisions mentioned in the above articles. In other of words, a Judge has to be way off in la la land to get the Superior Court to overturn his or her decision. The Superior Court reasons that the Family Court Judge is in the best position to observe the parties and evaluate the parent’s demeanor and testimony and therefore the judge’s decision should not be disturbed. The judge has discretion to disregard any and all testimony, reports of expert witnesses, and even it very own court appointed psychologist if it does not fit in with the Judge’s planned outcome of the case. Rules of evidence do not apply. Due to the wide discretion given judges in the family and juvenile divisions, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that there can be and are abuses. Absolute power corrupts absolutely e.g. Judge Jaffe.
Mary never abused or neglected her children-in fact, is a normal parent by most people’s standards. Hard working teacher, compassionate, gentle, kind and community leader are the best ways to describe Mary.. Judge Baer could have easily split up the parenting responsibilities and time with the children and been done with the case leaving the kids with two real parents. The kids also by extension lost meaningful contact with maternal grandparents and other extended family members.
Instead what he did with his enormous amount of discretion was to plunge the family into a litigious battle pitting the parents against one another to prove to him who was the better parent to award primary physical custody.
The family spent their kid’s college money on legal fees and psychological reports and the entire family including the innocent children were traumatized. Mary fought bravely as would any good parent to maintain her relationship with her children. She was treated with disrespect and at times withstood demeaning comments from the Judge during the family’s ordeal. (Mr. Anonymous exhibits a hauntingly similar tone in his above email).
Yes, it is fact in this case and others that the Judge failed to write a timely Opinion as required by procedure. The Opinion is necessary in an appeal to show how and why a judge reached a particular decision-without it, NO judicial error can be proven. Some people have waited 6 months to well over a year for the Opinions in their cases...and the kids just get another year older.
Why does there have to be a winners and a losers as you say? The law says that children’s best interests are served by having meaningful contact with BOTH parents and that the court’s involvement in the family should not be unnecessarily intrusive..
Had the law been correctly applied in Mary’s case, who would have been the winner? My bet would be on the kids.
THe best interests of the kids
by another parent of FD
Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2003 at 4:53 AM
I do not know the facts of Mary's case. I do not think that we should speculate about it either. But the Judges are supposed to determine the best interests of the children, not the best interests of the parents. I would expect that Mary was very passionate in court. But there must be more to this that we do not know. Nor do I really care to know. That is Mary's personal matter. I think that it would be best to end this discussion. Probably it is a good idea for Mary to get out of this one since her case sounds like it was very emotional. That is understandable, but is does make her look like she is making this her personal revenge. It would have to be pretty damn emotional to get her to tell us all to vote for a Republican.
sorry
by Mary
Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2003 at 5:56 AM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
I can't subcribe to the thesis that if you feel strongly about something, you should refrain from talking about it/trying to change the world. Why would you want to do that only for things you don't feel strongly about? This is life, not an intellectual exercise.
BTW, although the Orie Melvin case looked at issues of *anonymity* and free speech. That's part of what made the case interesting.
I choose not to post anonymously. One problem with this is that someone can dismiss what I say as something idiosyncratic to Mary Hart. If Max Baer posted as himself, you would look at what he was saying differently than you would the ostensible reasoned argument of an unbiased person. If Max participates in the discussion anonymously and defends Max, it's a bit manipulative.
Max Baer
by Denise
Thursday, Oct. 16, 2003 at 12:07 PM
I am not a disgruntle litigate I have no court case. I have been a family court advocate for some 22 plus years and I have been in the court room as an observer and have heard the stories from men and women on how Bear has destroyed their family. When he was in the position to help the families work through their difficulties. What Bear forgot to tell you about night court is that he closed it and it was reopened on April 5, 2000 under judge Mulligan at the request of several father’s and mother’s rights groups. The mediation program is a federal mandate, if the courts want to continue to receive federal money. Every state was under the obligation to have some type of mediation program in addition too the child support system that was 10 years late and was at risk of losing federal dollars. CASA came to Allegheny County under the leadership of Dean Herring from Pitt’s Law school. The CYF award he received was a year before he made that bad decision to return a foster child to a child molester. It was at this same time the same court that he would like to sit on step in and removed him from his position after CYF and several children advocacy groups complained and the story hit the paper.
A Family Court Advocate for the Indigent and Underrepresented
How did I ever miss this page???
by 2Beers
Thursday, Oct. 16, 2003 at 3:57 PM
Damn. I have to start reading all of the postings here. I ussually ignore the LLLLLOOOOOOONGGGGGG winded postings by the IMC zealots becasue they are usually more of the same lefty whiney "boo hoo someone stole the prize out of my cereal box" garbage. But this one is a gem. Mary, of the Editorial Collective (I'll bet she was even a hall monitor in junior high school too), has her knickers in such a twist that she is telling us all to vote Republican. Damn. I guess I have been effective in creeping into the weak and feeble psyche of the IMC leftisits.
And the rant about the misery of the court system and Max Baer is great. Now someone tell me how in the hell if Mary was representing herself that she managed to blow the kids college fund trying to do what was in the best interests of the kiddies. IS blowing the kids college fund really in their best interest? But if Mary teaches college, why do the kids need a college fund? Hey, I don't want to make a mockery of anyone's personal misfortune or relationships gone off the tracks (I know that we all have this BS experience). If she was representing herself did she pay herself? Or maybe she should have actually gotten a lawyer with that money that she blew.
It is a hell of a lot easier to play media editor than it is to play lawyer. But why would anyone ever think that they can play their own lawyer. What was it that they say (the attorney that represents themselves has "who?" for a client.). And when the stakes are so high ...... WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING. If the judges don't even understand the law or courtroom procedure what makes you think that you or any other person off the street is going to udnerstand it better and win the day? Oh I forgot, you are all smarter than the average (Max) bear.
VOTE FOR JOAN ORIE MELVIN !!! VOTE REPUBLICAN !!!! VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH !!!!
(Oh, and free ewan kenkesmearse also while you're at it)
sheesh
by Mary
Thursday, Oct. 16, 2003 at 9:26 PM
The fact that he did not allow people to represent themselves is one of a list of general complaints I presented about Baer- as in, he has screwed lots of people, in a variety of ways. That particular one is pretty egregious as it demonstrates that he is not constrained by the legality of what he does.
The amount that I paid for legal representation during 1990-99 while dealing with Baer was in the neighborhood of 150K.
Kinda suggests that the whole thing becomes an industry, and that "allowing" people to represent themselves would cause a loss of income to that industry. There is also major financial dis-incentive for attorneys to minimize the conflict which is termendously damaging to children & families.
Benefits, as well as salaries, differ greatly at different colleges and at different levels. In several places I have taught, the people who did the bulk of the teaching were at the bottom of the food chain, particularly if they were PhD-less.
CORRECT THE RECORD
by Jurist
Friday, Oct. 17, 2003 at 1:37 PM
An appeal can be taken immediately upon a final order in a matter. The party seeking appeal can file for the appeal (by filing a writ, or preacipe). Once the writ is filed the appelate court notifies the lower court judge of the appeal. The lower court judge then has 30 days in which to complete and file an opinion.
It is not necessary (and could even result in loss of your appeal rights) not to file for the appeal promptly after entry of the judge's order. SO if a judge issues and order without an opinino you can still appeal.
Although everyone has the "right" to a pro se representation, this is not always a good idea. The laws and rules of procedure are not there to protect an industry of lawyers, but are there to provide consistency in the judicial process. Understanding and following the rules of court is a very complicated task and not everyone (even experienced lawyers) can always get it right.
It does not seem that Max Baer is the scourge of civil rights that you would make him out to be. Judges regularly have their determinations examined and overruled by the appealate process. This is what keeps our judicial system honest and efficient. But it does appear that your lack of understanding of the court system lead you to some unfortunate results.
Max Baer has done alot to work with the public to educate people about the operation of the courts. As for his ruling in the case of the 73 year old child molester ... he ruled based on the law and the facts as presented to him. That is the way he is supposed to rule as a judge, and not based upon his emotion. I wonder how you would view his ruling if he had ruled in the manner you suggest in a slightly different case, say where the question was whether a convicted thief should be fired from her job at the grocery store or as a clerk at the bank. If the law needed to be refined or revised, then it was up to the legislature or the appellate courts to do this. Not up to the job to decide to overturn existing law from the bench.
nope, Max
by Mary
Friday, Oct. 17, 2003 at 6:35 PM
You say the judge isn't supposed to overturn existing law from the bench. He is, however, supposed to *follow* it.
Baer missed the "30 day deadline" twice for me. In one case, it was nearly two years before the opinion was produced.
Gee, I appreciate your having the litigant's best interests in mind by saying they should have an attorney....So, denying someone the right to be pro se is just "protecting" them for their own good.
Likewise, I see it's my "ignorance of the court system" that keeps me from appreciating the Wisdom of Baer...But do you suppose the voters of the state really want a justice who feels that they are just too stupid to understand how wise he is and how he really knows best?
Actually, one of the big problems with Baer is his overconfidence in his abilities...not only is he the ostensible expert on law, but he is (in his own eyes)the expert on psychology as well...so much so, that he routinely ignores the recommendations of the psychologists who do evaluations because he understands clinical psychology better than they do...and likewise doesn't need to to do criminal record checks, because he can make good decisions without any help.
The child molester case was just the example that caught made the headlines wrt criminal records checks. What about the tragedy of two-year-old Shawntee Ford, beaten to death by her father after custody was transferred to him, w/o a records check being done on him?
What about the waivers that were written so that kids could be adopted without criminal records checks, even in cases in which court personnel were aware of individuals having committed violent crimes- thus enabling Max to win an award for sheer volume of adoptions processed. This included cases in which no one involved (except Max) wanted adoption to take place, no one wanted parental rights terminated, but people were threatened with the child being moved elsewhere and everyone losing the child if they didn't consent to adoption. Max knows best, I guess, but some of the people who were told to rubber stamp waivers are starting to speak up about this.
Hey, check this out:
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx36.htm
grandiose sense of importance; fantasies of unlimited success & power; believes he is special or unique and can only be understood by other special or unique people; lack of empathy; shows arrogant, haughty behaviors. The symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder.
another tidbit on Orie Melvin
by John Lacny
Sunday, Oct. 19, 2003 at 7:22 PM
A couple of political-gossip types are publishing an insider-oriented newspaper, just launched, called the Western Pennsylvania Public Record. (You can pick it up at public buildings, particularly downtown). One of the stories is about a gathering that Chatham College had in honor of Joan Orie Melvin. In a photo that accompanies the story, she's flanked not only by her sister, Jane Orie, but also by Mary Matalin and Elsie Hillman.
Quite a progressive crowd there! (Hillman, by the way, is actually more progressive than Orie Melvin, since Orie Melvin is a fetus fetishist while at least Hillman is a suppoter of Planned Parenthood, if only from a Malthusian set of social values.) Who else is just itching to pull that "R" lever in a couple of weeks?
Reply to Correct the Record
by Kevin Sheahen
Monday, Oct. 20, 2003 at 6:50 AM
pghdads@aol.com
Mr. or Mrs. Jurist appears to be close when it comes to procedural comments as to appeals. He (or she) even went on to say that the judge has 30 days to write his written opinion after the appeal is filed. Let us assume that this person is correct and that 30 days after the filing of an appeal the written opinion is due from the judge.
This disqualifies Max Baer for any judicial promotion. Max Baer has a documented, long history of not being anywhere close to being punctual in his filings of written opinions. Max Baer has submitted written opinions over one year late. Max Baer has submitted written opinions after both parties had submitted their briefs and after the Superior Court ordered the case to proceed without the written opinion from your buddy Max. (A contradiction to Appelate Procedure)
This contested position of being a justice on PA's Supreme Court is definitely where the citizens of PA do not need Max Baer. He is probably one of the least qualified people for this position in this entire state.
Max Baer has gone on the record as saying he can decide a case in two minutes. How much evidence is he ignoring and removed from his predisposed 'decision' with such an attitude?
On October 9, 2003, Max Baer personally told me that the expert R. Christopher Barden, PhD, was correct 7 years ago in his expert testimony at trial. Yet Max Baer wrote in his 8 month late written opinion that he intentionally ignored all of this expert testimony because the expert held the same opinion as that of the Defendant.
Answer me this, how can we, the citizens of PA, expect a man, Max Baer, to completely review all of the facts, laws and standards of a case when he openly admits that he does not review all of the evidence to arrive at a decision and that he will ignore evidence if it contradicts his 'first impression' decision?
Please, for us citizens of PA who still believe in our Constitution, do not vote for Max Baer. Vote for yourself, at least you seem to be able to review some of the facts and procedures. We know that Max Baer does not.
It's MS. Jurist, thank you
by Jurist
Monday, Oct. 20, 2003 at 7:42 AM
Any failures by Max to comply with procedure should weigh against him in this important election. I was more concerned with the incorrect presentation of pro se and legal procedure. If you want to hang Max Baer do so based on a correct understanding of something that he did or didn't do. Don't attack him based on your own misunderstanding of the law or legal process.
I still have a problem with this whole vote republican thing though. That probably has me more scared about the way that we present this issue at IMC.
P
by R
Monday, Oct. 20, 2003 at 2:16 PM
"...since Orie Melvin is a fetus fetishist .."
I take it from the context of your post that 'fetus fetishist' has repugnant connotations for you. Why do you hate unborn children so much?
To all the knee-jerk Republican Haters
by John J. Cihon
Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2003 at 10:54 AM
jcihon@yahoo.com 412-403-0400
I have never been a litigant in Max Baer's courtroom. I do have an active custody case that may well end up in the state supreme court, so I am potentially hurting myself by speaking out.
Max Baer gave custody of a seven year old girl to a man who impregnated his own daughter. This man lied about his background, so he could adopt a child. I don't give a flying hoot if he was following the law as he saw fit or not (which he wasn't anyway), to do this is reprehesible. So go ahead and vote for Baer becasue he's pro-choice, but before you do, I want to imagine that seven year old child is in the voting booth with you, and I want to imagine yourself explaining that you're sorry for what she may have had to experience, but it's so important to you to put a pro-choice judge on the bench that you have to ignore her, and what happened to her. If you think that seven year old child would understand, then go ahead.
one slight addition
by John J. Cihon
Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2003 at 11:27 AM
Please be aware that Max Baer is in favor of the death penalty, and opposes a moritorium on the same issue.
Source: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/election/s_134517.html
another judge says Baer is unlawful
by Mary
Monday, Nov. 03, 2003 at 5:44 PM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
Juvenile Division Judge Cheryl Allen says that Baer tried to circumvent laws, made several decisions that were contrary to law, and told her that there was no law in juvenile court.
Kudos to the Courier for being gutsy enough to publish this, and to Cheryl Allen for speaking up.
http://www.newpittsburghcourier.com/index.php?article=878
Baer wins
by John Lacny
Tuesday, Nov. 04, 2003 at 9:41 PM
The fact that a Democratic candidate has just won a statewide judicial election -- despite the volatility of the fetus issue, particularly in the "T" -- cannot but bode well for next year, if this trend continues. Though will some on Indymedia Pittsburgh then be talking about how we should all vote for Bush because, e.g., Howard Dean favored civil unions rather than outright gay marriage? Perhaps lectures on dialectics with examples of how supporting Bush will heighten the contradictions of society and thus hasten capitalism's demise? "Worse the better" arguments reminiscent of those ultraleftists who in 1968 said "Help discredit the system -- vote for George Wallace"? Maybe a recapitulation of Comintern strategy in Germany ca. 1932? Many such winning options are surely available.
HA HA HA HA HA!
Baer was of course helped out by high turnouts in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia where there were hotly contested local elections, and where the results were also uniformly pleasant. I was especially amused by John Ashcroft's decision to inadvertently campaign for John Street -- hey, whatever you think of Street, having your office bugged by the FBI is indication that you must be doing something right in my book.
Can we say "Bush out the door in 2004"? I sure can.
it's about one person, not partison politics
by Mary
Wednesday, Nov. 05, 2003 at 3:41 AM
mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
It's not about partisan politics, and I don't think anyone is envisioning any complicated schemes. My concern is about the unfitness of one individual for a position, even if he is registered as, and running as, a democrat.
The flip side of this "pro-choice" person is that his advocacy for what he feels, even if it is in conflict with the law, doesn't end with the abortion issue.
Historically, people who have found themselves in his courtroom expected to have the right to a trial, and to be able to present testimony and have others do so. But if "he feels" that the law shouldn't apply in your case- and who knows for what reason? perhaps because the other attorney is someone who is more able to help Baer's career than your attorney is- the legal rights don't apply. While, in terms of the law, you shouldn't lose your kids unless you are abusive or neglectful, he may "feel" that you should. And finally, legally speaking, children have certain rights, including that of not being given to someone with a violent criminal record or a record of raping children, but again, Baer sometimes "felt" differently from the law.
Talk to Mable Ford, the mother of Shawntee Ford, who was two when she was beaten to death within a month of Shawntee's being removed from the custody of Mable and placed with a father she had never known and who had a violent criminal record (which was perfectly okay for the Baer Family Division). Tell Mable it's all about "choice"- I'm sure that will make her loss seem worthwhile.
I'm not convinced that fetuses have rights, but there is no doubt in my mind that two-years and seven-year olds- and adults- do. The judge does not seem to agree. Perhaps someday you- or your children- will find yourselves in a position of having your legal rights- the ones you thought you had- ignored in court. Then you may get it. In the meantime, Baer now gets to preside over death penaly cases.
I guess the good side of this is that, in Common Pleas court, there was no oversight or accountability. In the Supreme Court, Bear's actions will be observed by the other justices, at least some of whom, hopefully, take the law seriously.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)