In order to shed some insight on the next installments of My Story: For the Love of a Child, I am going to discuss several other cases in my next few postings.
As I mentioned before, I argued my first case before the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of Toms v. Toms, 98 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2003). The case is posted on An Attorney’s Tale Facebook page. The case made its way to the state’s highest court via what is known as an Extraordinary Appeal, an appeal where the trial court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review.” R.10 Tenn.R.App.Proc. I filed the appeal on behalf of my client, the mother of two young children whom were taken from her and given to the paternal grandparents by the court based solely on the report of a guardian ad litem.
I was retained by the mother after she was summonsed to defend an action by the paternal grandparents in a divorce. The grandparents filed a motion to intervene because they were aware that given the actions of the father, that he would not get custody. The circuit court judge to whom the case was assigned was Robert “Butch” Childers; however, the grandparents filed their “emergency” motion while he was out of town, so the case ended up before Judge James Russell. The grandparents’ attorney was William Monroe, the father’s attorney was Wendy Dabbous, and the guardian ad litem, “GAL”, was Susan Hinsley.
At the “so-called” hearing, the judge only took in the GAL’s written report, over my vehement objections of hearsay and lack of veracity (truthfulness) of the report. The judge called the attorneys to the bench and looked at me and said, “You need to crack open the books and learn how we do things in Shelby County.” I thought, well the law books say I am right; what other books do I need to look at?” The judge ordered the immediate change of custody from the mother to the grandparents, and deputies were dispatched to ensure that it occurred.
I filed an application to the Tennessee Court of Appeals for an Extraordinary Appeal; however, they denied the application. I then filed the application with the Tennessee Supreme Court, which granted the application. Both sides had to simultaneously file an expedited brief, and oral arguments were set soon thereafter.
During the time period in which the briefs were being prepared, the grandparents’ attorney, William Monroe, filed a complaint against me with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (“TBPR“), the “policing arm” of the Tennessee Supreme Court; this was clearly his response to the granting of the appeal. He complained that I allowed my client to secretly record Hinsley’s visit to the mother’s home to inspect the home and interview my client. Prior to the visit by Hinsley, my client did inform me that she was going to secretly videotape the visit for her own protection against any mistruths made by Hinsley; I did not advise her to do it, nor did I have any position on it. The TBPR issued a Public Censure against me for NOT advising my client to NOT do something that she had every legal right to do. Under federal law and Tennessee law, a person that is involved in a conversation or meeting may secretly record it as long as that person stays in the conversation or meeting. My client did nothing illegal; however, I was censured for NOT telling her to not do it. This shows the political nature of the TBPR; the law does not matter, only the politics of the people who have the connections matter. Of course, after having filed complaints against Madison County attorney Christy Little and Madison County Circuit Court Judge Whit LaFon, the TBPR had zeroed in on me as a person who will “buck the system”, which is not “politically correct.” The trial judge ordered my client to turn over the original and all copies of the tape to Hinsley. Of course, my client’s fears were correct since Hinsley made many “erroneous” statements in her report.
During oral arguments before the high court, William Monroe stated to the court that it is rare for attorneys to be arguing constitutional issues in a family law matter. When I heard that statement, I thought to myself, “why“? Does the Constitution not apply to family law cases? My answer to myself was, “of course not”. I have first hand experience of the utter disregard of supposedly protected constitutional parental rights in child custody matters. I have also seen the same disregard day in and day out in the Shelby County courts, the disregard being hidden in the legal fiction of deciding cases “in the best interests of the child.” The Tennessee Supreme Court did rule in my client’s favor; however, getting her children back was still an issue.
After the high court’s decision, the case was sent back to the original trial judge, Judge Childers, the judge who was REVERSED by the Tennessee Supreme Court in the Anna Mae He case. Judge Childers was not at all happy about the Extraordinary Appeal nor at the fact that my client, the mother, won the case. The Tennessee Supreme Court ordered the grandparents to pay my fees, which totaled around $12,000; however, Childers knocked that amount down to two to three thousand. Childers also dismissed the divorce case, and when I stated that we needed an order to transfer custody of the children back to the mother, he just smugly raised his shoulders and said the case is over. These actions were clearly vindictive, and the refusal to issue a transfer order was a slap in the face of the Tennessee Supreme Court and created a “race” to the Juvenile Court. Prior to a hearing on the matter in Juvenile Court, the grandparents finally relinquished custody to my client.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
My Story: For the Love of a Child - Part 2 of 4
The Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s award of joint custody and ordered a new trial. While the appeal was pending, due to the lawsuit against Christy Little, the GAL, Chancellor Morris recused himself. The case was transferred to Circuit Court Judge Whit LaFon; Lafon was the uncle of former vice-president Al Gore. To make a long story short, Lafon was a shining example of why state judges should have to undergo the same scrutiny and appointment processes as federal judges. Many in the area referred to him as “Twit LaFon”. A google search of Whit Lafon reveals articles that LaFon was the subject of federal and state drug trafficking investigations; I do not know the veracity of those articles, but they make for some interesting reading. I was observing LaFon in court one time while he was berating a defendant for several minutes because of the defendant’s alleged actions overnight since the previous days hearing, and LaFon was about to put him in jail. The court clerk continually tried to get LaFon’s attention during this time when the clerk finally stated very loudly, “Your honor, this is not the same person from yesterday.”
While the appeal was pending, I became actively involved with the DAD organization, and wrote many Letters to the Editor advocating reform in child custody laws that were published in area newspapers. At the first pre-trial hearing in front of LaFon, LaFon strongly advised me to stop writing Letters to the Editor. It was clear at that time that LaFon had already made his decision in my case. I filed a complaint with the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary against LaFon. See letter from Disciplinary Counsel on Facebook page. LaFon was aware of the complaint at the new custody trial and actually questioned me for several minutes from the bench about the complaint. This was clearly improper and unethical. Lafon denied to the Court of the Judiciary that he had questioned me about the complaint, see Lafon’s response to the complaint attached on the Facebook page; however, the trial transcript proves otherwise, with the pertinent section starting with:
THE COURT: All right. Have you reported any judge to the disciplinary board?
MR. WINCHESTER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Who was that?
MR. WINCHESTER: Your Honor.
Not surprisingly, LaFon awarded my ex-wife sole custody of my daughter, with me being granted standard visitation. So I went from having my daughter every other week to only having her every other week-end, two weeks during the summer, and alternating holidays. The day that decision was made was the worst day of my life at that point in time.
End of Part 2.
While the appeal was pending, I became actively involved with the DAD organization, and wrote many Letters to the Editor advocating reform in child custody laws that were published in area newspapers. At the first pre-trial hearing in front of LaFon, LaFon strongly advised me to stop writing Letters to the Editor. It was clear at that time that LaFon had already made his decision in my case. I filed a complaint with the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary against LaFon. See letter from Disciplinary Counsel on Facebook page. LaFon was aware of the complaint at the new custody trial and actually questioned me for several minutes from the bench about the complaint. This was clearly improper and unethical. Lafon denied to the Court of the Judiciary that he had questioned me about the complaint, see Lafon’s response to the complaint attached on the Facebook page; however, the trial transcript proves otherwise, with the pertinent section starting with:
MR. WINCHESTER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Who was that?
MR. WINCHESTER: Your Honor.
Not surprisingly, LaFon awarded my ex-wife sole custody of my daughter, with me being granted standard visitation. So I went from having my daughter every other week to only having her every other week-end, two weeks during the summer, and alternating holidays. The day that decision was made was the worst day of my life at that point in time.
End of Part 2.
Monday, January 24, 2011
My Story: For the Love of a Child - Part 1 of 4
I argued my first case before the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of Toms v. Toms, 98 S.W.3d 140 (Tenn. 2003). The case made its way to the state’s highest court via what is know as an Extraordinary Appeal, an appeal where the trial court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review.” R.10 Tenn.R.App.Proc. I filed the appeal on behalf of my client, the mother of two young children whom were taken from her and given to the paternal grandparents by the court based solely on the report of a guardian ad litem. During oral arguments before the high court, the grandparents’ attorney, William Monroe, stated to the court that it is rare for attorneys to be arguing constitutional issues in a family law matter. When I heard that statement, I thought to myself, “why“? Does the Constitution not apply to family law cases? My answer to myself was, “of course not”. I have first hand experience of the utter disregard of supposedly protected constitutional parental rights in child custody matters. I have also seen the same disregard day in and day out in the Shelby County courts, the disregard being hidden in the legal fiction of deciding cases “in the best interests of the child.” The Tennessee Supreme Court did rule in my client’s favor and she did get her children back. The Constitution actually prevailed in that case; unfortunately, that was the exception and it was not what normally occurs in child custody cases. Toms v. Toms will be discussed in depth in a future posting.
The facts of the Toms case solidified my disgust with the court system in child custody cases, especially when an extra attorney is involved - the guardian ad litem, “GAL”. In my own child custody case, Winchester v. Winchester, a GAL (then attorney and now Madison County Juvenile Court Judge Christy Rauchle Little) filed her “report” to the court with many false statements. My attorney at that time, Nancy Nelson, told me that Little favored mothers in child custody cases. Little did not show up for the trial, but just filed her “report” with the court, which recommended that my ex-wife be awarded custody of my daughter. The trial judge, Chancellor Joe Morris, awarded joint custody, and my ex-wife and I both appealed.
While the appeal was pending, I met a Memphis attorney, Tim Edwards, through a group called DAD, which stands for Dads Against Discrimination. We discussed my case and he said I should file a complaint against Little with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, “BPR”, the attorney policing arm of the Tennessee Supreme Court (in future postings, an in-depth look at the workings of the BPR, and the politics involved, will be made). Shortly after I filed the complaint against Little, my attorney called me and told me that Little had called her and that Little was upset about the complaint. My attorney told me that Little was her friend, and my attorney told me that I needed to find another attorney to finish my appeal. Edwards completed the appeal, but having to change attorneys in the middle of an appeal just does not look good to the court. Edwards and I also discussed the possibility of filing a lawsuit against Little, but when I was ready to do so, he decided not to do it, so I did it myself (at this time I was not an attorney, but I was in law school). By the way, the BPR, despite being furnished with documentary proof that Little had made false statements in her “report”, dismissed my complaint against her.
I filed a civil lawsuit, Winchester v. Little, 996 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998), against Little in the Madison County Circuit Court for violation of federal constitutional and civil rights, as well as state claims. The attorneys that represented Little were Thomas H. Rainey, John D. Burleson, and Dale Conder, Jr., all with the law firm Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell. (You will hear a lot more about that law firm, as well as Little, in future postings.) The trial judge, Julian P. Guinn, dismissed the lawsuit on the basis of immunity. In other words, it did not matter what Little did or did not do; since she was appointed by the court as a GAL, she was immune from liability - she could not be sued.
I appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a GAL is not a “state actor” for purposes of the federal claims, but then holding that a GAL is entitled to “absolute quasi-judicial immunity” for purposes of the state claims because a GAL is an integral part of the judicial process. WHAT? If a GAL is part of the judicial process, does that not necessarily mean that the GAL is performing a state function, and, therefore, is a state actor? So, on the one hand, a GAL IS NOT a state actor if the GAL is being sued under federal law, but, on the other hand, that same GAL IS a state actor if being sued under state law, all in the same lawsuit.
Since the courts decided that Little was immune from liability, and therefore could not be sued, the actual facts stated in the lawsuit were never addressed by the courts, and the truth was legally suppressed.
End of Part 1.
The facts of the Toms case solidified my disgust with the court system in child custody cases, especially when an extra attorney is involved - the guardian ad litem, “GAL”. In my own child custody case, Winchester v. Winchester, a GAL (then attorney and now Madison County Juvenile Court Judge Christy Rauchle Little) filed her “report” to the court with many false statements. My attorney at that time, Nancy Nelson, told me that Little favored mothers in child custody cases. Little did not show up for the trial, but just filed her “report” with the court, which recommended that my ex-wife be awarded custody of my daughter. The trial judge, Chancellor Joe Morris, awarded joint custody, and my ex-wife and I both appealed.
While the appeal was pending, I met a Memphis attorney, Tim Edwards, through a group called DAD, which stands for Dads Against Discrimination. We discussed my case and he said I should file a complaint against Little with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, “BPR”, the attorney policing arm of the Tennessee Supreme Court (in future postings, an in-depth look at the workings of the BPR, and the politics involved, will be made). Shortly after I filed the complaint against Little, my attorney called me and told me that Little had called her and that Little was upset about the complaint. My attorney told me that Little was her friend, and my attorney told me that I needed to find another attorney to finish my appeal. Edwards completed the appeal, but having to change attorneys in the middle of an appeal just does not look good to the court. Edwards and I also discussed the possibility of filing a lawsuit against Little, but when I was ready to do so, he decided not to do it, so I did it myself (at this time I was not an attorney, but I was in law school). By the way, the BPR, despite being furnished with documentary proof that Little had made false statements in her “report”, dismissed my complaint against her.
I filed a civil lawsuit, Winchester v. Little, 996 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1998), against Little in the Madison County Circuit Court for violation of federal constitutional and civil rights, as well as state claims. The attorneys that represented Little were Thomas H. Rainey, John D. Burleson, and Dale Conder, Jr., all with the law firm Rainey, Kizer, Butler, Reviere & Bell. (You will hear a lot more about that law firm, as well as Little, in future postings.) The trial judge, Julian P. Guinn, dismissed the lawsuit on the basis of immunity. In other words, it did not matter what Little did or did not do; since she was appointed by the court as a GAL, she was immune from liability - she could not be sued.
I appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a GAL is not a “state actor” for purposes of the federal claims, but then holding that a GAL is entitled to “absolute quasi-judicial immunity” for purposes of the state claims because a GAL is an integral part of the judicial process. WHAT? If a GAL is part of the judicial process, does that not necessarily mean that the GAL is performing a state function, and, therefore, is a state actor? So, on the one hand, a GAL IS NOT a state actor if the GAL is being sued under federal law, but, on the other hand, that same GAL IS a state actor if being sued under state law, all in the same lawsuit.
Since the courts decided that Little was immune from liability, and therefore could not be sued, the actual facts stated in the lawsuit were never addressed by the courts, and the truth was legally suppressed.
End of Part 1.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Preamble
My name is William Winchester. I decided to go into the practice of law to “change the system” after being crushed by a system of corruption during my own divorce and child custody case in Jackson, Tennessee. Nine years later, after suffering a heart attack and losing my first daughter again in a corrupt system, I stopped practicing law; however, it will not leave me alone.
The beginning of the end started at the end of 2006 when my first daughter, just turning 12, began exhibiting the signs of Parental Alienation Syndrome, which ultimately led to me not having any contact with her. This, of course, created great psychological trauma for me, just as the death of a child would have to any parent. In June 2007, I suffered a heart attack, and for the next year I was on a roller coaster of medications and side effects from the various heart and blood pressure medications. At this point, I decided that for my health and the well-being of my family, that I had to close my law practice and leave Memphis, Tennessee.
With continuous health and emotional issues, as I was closing my practice, I know that I let a few people down. It is my intent to remedy those few matters as best as I can; however, with the health and emotional drains that I was experiencing, I had no choice if I were to maintain my sanity.
This blog site is a preview of a tell all book I am writing, preliminarily entitled “The Shelby County Way”. The book is a collection of actual cases from the following Tennessee counties: Shelby, Madison, and Fayette. The decisions of judges and juries in these cases defy all reason, and can only be explained by one word - corruption. The corruption does not necessarily involve monetary payoffs, but can include “good ole boy” politics, “back room” deals, racism, sexism, and elitism. My definition of corruption is the influence of any factor in making a legal decision by a judge or jury that is not legally permissible.
My next two posts will be the details of my own case with its twists and turns in and around Jackson, Tennessee, from 1994 through today. It will show how judicial politicking and influence spans several courtrooms, from the juvenile court to the circuit court, and how one law firm is the epicenter of it all.
The beginning of the end started at the end of 2006 when my first daughter, just turning 12, began exhibiting the signs of Parental Alienation Syndrome, which ultimately led to me not having any contact with her. This, of course, created great psychological trauma for me, just as the death of a child would have to any parent. In June 2007, I suffered a heart attack, and for the next year I was on a roller coaster of medications and side effects from the various heart and blood pressure medications. At this point, I decided that for my health and the well-being of my family, that I had to close my law practice and leave Memphis, Tennessee.
With continuous health and emotional issues, as I was closing my practice, I know that I let a few people down. It is my intent to remedy those few matters as best as I can; however, with the health and emotional drains that I was experiencing, I had no choice if I were to maintain my sanity.
This blog site is a preview of a tell all book I am writing, preliminarily entitled “The Shelby County Way”. The book is a collection of actual cases from the following Tennessee counties: Shelby, Madison, and Fayette. The decisions of judges and juries in these cases defy all reason, and can only be explained by one word - corruption. The corruption does not necessarily involve monetary payoffs, but can include “good ole boy” politics, “back room” deals, racism, sexism, and elitism. My definition of corruption is the influence of any factor in making a legal decision by a judge or jury that is not legally permissible.
My next two posts will be the details of my own case with its twists and turns in and around Jackson, Tennessee, from 1994 through today. It will show how judicial politicking and influence spans several courtrooms, from the juvenile court to the circuit court, and how one law firm is the epicenter of it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)