BY TYLER WHITLEY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Feb 09, 2003

The Republican majority in the General Assembly is finding that electing judges is not as easy as it seemed when they were on the outside watching Democrats control the judicial-selection process.

"We are reinventing the wheel," Del. H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, the House majority leader, said Friday.

"It is a better process than it was, but it can be improved and we are working on it."

In the current session, the messy process of interviewing an appeals court judge up for re-election turned into an even messier process when Newport News Circuit Judge Verbena Askew was subjected to a public inquisition before Republicans chose not to reappoint her.

Now some critics are claiming that the GOP is putting at risk the independence of the judiciary by reviewing judges' written opinions.

"There is a fine line between judicial independence and judicial accountability," said Bernard DiMuro, president of the Virginia State Bar.

The legislature has a duty to question the decisions of a judge and to question the character, the intellect and the capacity of judges, DiMuro said. But if it attempts to sway how a judge will make future decisions, then it has crossed the line, he said.

In an op-ed article being circulated to newspapers, Del. Franklin P. Hall, D-Richmond, leader of the 34 House of Delegates' Democrats, wrote:

"When it comes to judicial reappointments, I believe that we now have started down a very slippery - and dangerous slope: establishing a litmus test for judicial reappointment based on narrow and divisive hot-button social issues and personal animosities."

Del. Robert F. McDonnell, R-Virginia Beach and chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee, disagreed. No litmus test is being applied, he said.

"Any time you make a change in the system, you have criticism," McDonnell said. "The Democrats rubber-stamped judges for 100 years. They never involved Republicans."

Before, judges were brought in for a few minutes, then certified or not certified, he said.

"That was an abdication of constitutional duty. Senator Stolle and I thought it was appropriate to begin evaluating the opinions of appeals court judges," he said. Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, is chairman of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.

"We are not so much interested in how they rule," he said. "Do they articulate the reasons for their decisions well? Do they follow the law or are they engaged in judicial activism?"

Nevertheless, aware of the criticism, McDonnell has appointed a bipartisan subcommittee of the courts committee to examine how the process can be improved. Specifically, he wants the subcommittee to examine a questionnaire the committee sends to each judicial applicant and to come up with a different method of selecting the opinions to be reviewed by the courts committees.

It was the questioning of Judge Rosemarie P. Annunziata, up for re-election to the Court of Appeals, that drew the ire of Democrats.

Courts of Justice Republicans zeroed in on a lesbian custody case. McDonnell said he selected a broad cross-section of seven Annunziata opinions, but agreed that "some opinions were focused on more than others."

He said he made a mistake when he didn't give her advance notice of the opinions that were being reviewed. After being given a heads up on the opinions, Annunziata was re-elected without controversy.

Del. Kenneth R. Melvin, D-Portsmouth, a member of the subcommittee, praised McDonnell for reviewing the process, but said the new approach needs refining.

"This time the train went off the tracks," he said. "We need a set mechanism to determine what opinions to review. We want to make sure we don't go past the legal reasoning and into the politics of a decision."

Stolle also admitted to a few bumps in the process but said, "I don't think the process has broken down."

The Senate and House courts committees should review the opinions of appellate judges, he said, but should not trespass on judicial independence when doing so.

"If we don't like your decisions, you may not be re-elected; that can be called intimidation," said Sen. John S. Edwards, D-Roanoke. "They have been careful not to cross the line, but they are getting very close to the line," he said of the Republican leadership.

While attention is being focused on the issue of judicial independence, McDonnell said the Republicans began changing the process in 1998, when they reached power-sharing parity with the Democrats.

Before judicial interviews had been behind closed doors. The GOP started making them public.

It also began encouraging local delegations to set up a judicial interview process, bringing in representatives of victims, prosecutors, plaintiff and defense attorneys to seek out and interview qualified judicial candidates, McDonnell said.

At the instigation of the Virginia Supreme Court, a judicial performance evaluation system was created in 2001 to evaluate each sitting judge three times during their initial term and twice during additional terms.

The system has not yet been funded, but $106,000 is in the budgets approved by the House and Senate on Thursday to help get the program started.

Once the evaluations are completed and the two courts committees decide whether to certify the judges, the names are passed to the Republican caucuses. As the majority party, the GOP controls the judicial-selection process, as Democrats did for years.

Tyler:

Your story in today's Richmond Times-Dispatch merely scratches the surface of the vast problems that have yet to be addressed in the Virginia Court System, at ALL levels.

At present, your article cannot be transmitted from the RTD website to others via the internet. For the benefit of others, today's RTD also has a glowing tribute to now retired Chief Justice Carrico from David Baldacci, a trial lawyer turned novelist. The article mentions that, when serving as a Circuit Court Judge in Fairfax County, Carrico had been known to ride a horse to work in snowy weather. Perhaps that explains the stench of horse manure that still permeates the Courthouse and most judges there to this day.

With respect to Delegate Melvin's comment, the judicial juggernaut has been off the tracks for years. Those who attended the Courts of Justice hearings on judicial re-elections several weeks ago and last Sunday night's session of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee know that many fathers are extremely concerned at the way in which most members of the Virginia Court System, many lawyers and members of the General Assembly are acting in cahoots for their own self interest rather than the "best interests" of children. By so doing, they violate the principle of the separation of powers and the Virginia Bill of Rights.

You rightly note that Democrats have stacked the courts in Virginia for the last 100 years with those whose political philosophy mirror's their own liberal mentality. Curiously, you do not mention the rampant anti-father bias and corruption which results from the unlimited and unethical relationship between the Virginia Court System, the State Bar Association, the Virginia Bar Association and certain members of the General Assembly.

Your paper and the Washington Post are part of the power system that keeps corrupt judges in office. Little wonder then that we do not read in your paper or others in this state about what really went on a couple of weeks ago in Richmond when several Fairfax County judges were opposed.

The "hearing" on re-electing Judge Annunziata was the most nauseating experience I have ever had at any government proceeding. How sad that Del Vince Callahan stooped so low to introduce and praise a judge who has exhibited an extreme bias against most fathers and lack of impartiality in domestic relations cases which it was revealed during the proceeding now constitute 50% of appeals in Virginia.

Why is that figure 50% do you wonder????? Domestic relations has become a $200 billion industry in the United States annually stealing money from children to line the pockets of lawyers, psychologists, social workers, child support consultants and assorted ambulance chasers.

Swarms of lawyers packed the House Courts of Justice hearing room for the Annunziata caper. Throughout the proceeding, Del McDonnell and most of his colleagues pandered to the lawyers and judges present. What a disgrace! Our founding fathers would be appalled.

McDonnell, who hopes to become the next Virginia Attorney General, and Del. Terry Kilgore, who was in charge of judicial elections for the Courts of Justice and has just been selected as one of four candidates for a federal judgeship in Southwest Virginia, abdicated their duties and responsibilities in the face of the overwhelming presence of power hungry and fee-crazy liberal bar association heads.

Virginians need to know of the obscene power play by bar associations to support a woman who makes law from the bench and frequently ignores the existing statutes. What immorality and not just by Judge Annunziata. To his credit, at least McDonnell held a public proceeding. Senator Stolle, knowing of a potential outcry against Annunziata and Judge Langhorne Keith acted like a horse thief in the night by suddenly scheduling his hearing on a Monday morning and Senate passage the same day. It's a good thing that Stolle is moving on from Senate Courts of Justice.

Following are my incomplete notes from the Annunziata hearing:

THE TEN WITNESSES (MOST WITH NO RESPECT FOR THE TEN COMMANDMENTS)(forgive any spelling errors on names)

1. Chief Judge of Court of Appeals Joanna Fitzpatrick

Remarkably, the Chief Judge plainly lied:

" I have never had a complaint...about Judge Annunziata."

Oh no??????? Over 3 dozen fathers testified about rampant anti father bias at the trial level and Virginia Court of Appeals at a proceeding of the "Task Force on Judicial Performance" (McDonnell's pet project) in Fairfax County, think it was April 2001. I am willing to testify under oath about that proceeding.

After that "public hearing" I asked the Chief Judge who was in the company of Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Jane Marham Roush about Shoup v Shoup. She was very matter of fact in saying it was a bad ruling. In that case, Annunziata ruled in favor of the mother who, some years after the emancipation of one child, sought back child support in violation of the VA statutes. In its initial ruling, later overturned by the Court of Appeals en banc, Annunziata clearly was setting a standard to require judicial review to determine when emancipation occurs so as to line the pockets of her lawyer friends.

2. Glenn Lewis Co Chair Virginia Bar Association Family law section -DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAWYER practicing in Fairfax County and former President of Fairfax Bar Association.

Admitted that Annunziata never ruled in his favor (It's the money that counts not winning!!)

3. Bernard DiMuro -President of Virginia State Bar

Also representing Trial Lawyers Ass and Virginia Criminal Defense Lawyers Assn. Said something about her demeanor, civility and fairness - Utter Rubbish!!

4. John Wasowicz - Current President of Fairfax Bar Association. DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAWYER. He is the man who on December 18 took the sealed packages into the Fairfax County General Assembly delegation meeting in Annandale (slipping a few Ben Franklins in with the packages?). Del Dave Albo brought out the packages after the "closed door" deliberations and gave them back to Wasowicz. I asked him to explain why it was not a conflict of interest and a betrayal of public trust for an officer of the court who appears frequently before the judges being considered for re-election to not make public the information provided to legislators. He refused to make any comment.

5. Edward Betts - President Virginia Bar Association

6. Larry Diehl DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAWYER who frequently testifies on legislation at General Assembly. Spoke of "decisiveness of her opinions." Ignored the divisiveness of her actions on children denied "frequent and continuing access" to fathers.

7. Franklin Bland- President of Virginia Chapter of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers/ DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAWYER

8. Joe Condo -Past President of Virginia State Bar and...

FAIRFAX COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAWYER

9. Elizabeth Dillon - President Virginia Women Attorneys

10 Linda Kennedy - A Tidewater area lawyer who (I was told) is being disbarred because she dared to reveal the practice of judges who tamper with transcripts and order secret dismissals of complaints to the State Bar Associaton.

Kennedy said that the Courts of Justice ignored "the little guys" from public and that Virginia judges "don't follow the constitution." She said to the House COJ members (and I agree)"We can't trust you any more!"

About six years ago, I proposed to the Northern Virginia delegation at a public hearing that one third of Courts of Justice Committee members be non-lawyers to avoid the obvious conflicts that exist. Former Sen. Charles Waddell came up to me afterwrds smiling: "Keep going for them Rob!"

Now I believe that a majority of COJ members should be non-lawyers. There should be MANDATORY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN JUDGES, LAWYERS AND LEGISLATORS ON THE COURTS OF JUSTICE COMMITTEES INCLUDING A STATE WEB SITE POSTING OF ALL LEGISLATOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY LAW FIRMS

Finally, there should be a wall to prevent legislators who serve on COJ from voting on judges before whom they appear in their own jurisdictions.

Judges Annunziata and Keith may have won this round of the battle but the war has just begun. Our cause is fair and equal justice under law. God and the truth are on our side.

Rob Whitfield
PO Box 2265
Reston, VA 20195