Thursday, May 13, 2010

Supreme Court Justice Race~

Here is more info I found on the Arkansas Supreme Court Justices

On May 18th Arkansans will be asked to elect two Judges to the Arkansas Supreme Court. While some would have you believe that the Supreme Court race is one based mostly on personalities and endorsements, it can be argued that if someone takes seriously their right to vote they would feel the need to dig a little deeper especially where Supreme Court Justices are concerned.

Position 3 ~Race between Circuit Court Judge John Fogleman and Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge Courtney Henry.

John Fogleman http://fogleman.edelta.net/
His website says: “He’s tried and heard thousands of cases” over the past nearly three decades. In all those cases the only blemish on Fogleman’s record is the controversial West Memphis Three case- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_3. The case revolved around the horrific murder of three boys and the life altering sentencing of three other young men. The Google hits on this case are astronomical. Emotions and conspiracy theories are abundant. A law library full of assertions have been made that Judge Fogleman “botched” the case but there has been NO proof of any wrong doing or judicial negligence on his part - in any way. In his 30 year career this is the only case I could find that was deemed “negative” or controversial.
Endorsing Forgleman are 3 former Supreme Court Justices, 19 former presidents of the Ark Bar Association and a former president of the American Bar Assn.

Courtney Hudson Henry http://www.henryforjustice.com/
As you can see, compared to her opponent, Henry has little experience as a Judge, but comes with a stack of endorsements. Supporters of Henry would include a politically diverse and influential group of people as former Republican Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt to Democrats like Jimmie Lou Fisher and Senator Mary Anne Salmon and President Bill Clinton.

Position 6 : State Court of Appeals Judge Karen Baker, Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox and Little Rock lawyer Evelyn Moorehead.

Karen Baker:http://www.judgebaker.com/
Mrs. Baker has tried and presided over thousands of cases so there is plenty to examine. I found that her most controversial case involved SWEPCO. The powers that be want to make her ruling in this case about everything she says it is not, which is that SWEPCO simply did not follow the law. http://bit.ly/dkalDL

Tim Fox: http://timfoxforsupremecourt.com/wp/
Fox has also tried myriad cases and in researching his record I found several cases that gave me pause.
One of the most heated and controversial cases involves a well known attorney in Little Rock Sam Perroni http://bit.ly/dcOq3a . From what I was able to understand Mr. Perroni missed a court date in Judge Fox’s court because he had a federal court case the same day. Mr. Fox held Mr. Perroni in contempt and things only went downhill from there. My challenge with this is that Judge Fox appears to have made the issue personal, spending time and money to “prosecute” something that could just as easily have been a judicial “reprimand”.
Another one that is concerning- Robinson v. Villines http://bit.ly/axYm00 where Judge Fox retroactively applied an increase in the library millage rates for the 2007 tax year. The decision was appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court and a unanimous decision was made that Judge Fox clearly erred, stipulating no statutory or constitutional authority to retroactively apply the millage-rate increase.
In this overturned cases Judge Fox certainly appears to have usurped the law to make his case. There are more cases where Judge Fox was overturned because of the supposed “un-constitutionality” of his findings.

Evelyn Moorehead http://evelynmoorehead.com/
Being that Ms. Moorehead is not a judge there is no case law to “vet” however there is a news article on her website if found quite interesting- http://bit.ly/aPnUrD

This admittedly limited information hopefully will inspire voters to carefully explore all the candidates for which they will be pulling the lever on May 18th~ GET OUT AND VOTE!

Questions for Tim Fox

I visited with Tim Fox a few weeks ago & asked these and a few more questions. For the most part Mr. Fox did not have answers. I would like others to have the benefit of my research so that they to may ask pertinent questions. Those chosen to sit on the Arkansas Supreme Court should be sound constitutionalist that will protect the citizens of Arkansas, comply with and fairly enforce the law.

**I am not a lawyer so there may be details I do not have or understand but suffice to say these questions were not answered
JUDGE TIM FOX
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT, POSITION 6
STATEWIDE RACE
PRIMARY MAY 18, 2010

BIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND
LEGAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Juris Doctor, University of Arkansas School of Law, 1981
Private Practice, 1981-1991
Chief Assistant City Attorney, City of North Little Rock, 1991-1996
Prosecutor, North Little Rock District Court, 1996-1999
Private Practice, 1996-2002
Circuit Court Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, 2003 – Present
Master of Judicial Studies, University of Nevada at Reno and National Judicial College, 2007
Certificate in Judicial Development, National Judicial College, 2007
Faculty, National Judicial College
President, William R. Overton American Inn of Court, 2009 – 2010
PERSONAL
Married to Cathy Cothran Fox for 27 years
Father of two children, Caitlin and Andrew
Pulaski Heights United Methodist Church
Former Board Chairperson, United Methodist Children’s Home
Former Board President, Friends of Arkansas Educational Television Network



CONSTITUTION – TAXES

1. The first case is one where, as I understand it, the Supreme Court of the United States said you made a mistake interpreting the Constitution, and that your interpretation violated due process that resulted in the unconstitutional taking of property. Can you explain?

Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S. Ct. 1708 (U.S.Ark.,2006).
In this tax case, a taxpayer brought suit in Arkansas state court for determination that the notice provided by the state in connection with the tax sale of his property was insufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements and resulted in the taking of his property without due process. Judge Fox, entered summary judgment (without a trial) in favor of defendants, and the taxpayer appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court, 359 Ark. 443, 198 S.W.3d 520, affirmed, but the United States Supreme granted certiorari (that means that they agreed to look at the case).

The United States Supreme Court held that Judge Fox and the Arkansas Supreme Court were wrong saying: (1) when mailed notice of tax sale is returned unclaimed, state, as matter of due process, must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to property owner before selling property, if it is practicable to do so; and(2) steps which state took after being alerted to fact that notice had not been delivered, in proceeding with sale after simply publishing notice in newspaper a few weeks prior thereto, without ever posting notice at address to which notice was sent or taking other measures reasonably available to alert taxpayer of sale, were insufficient to satisfy taxpayer's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. They reversed and remanded.

2. Have you been reversed by the United States Supreme Court finding that your interpretation of a law or case violated the constitution?

3. Have you been reversed by the United States Supreme Court as a judge? As an attorney urging a particular position?

4. A few years later, the Arkansas Supreme Court, in another case involving taxes, said that you were wrong in retroactively applying a millage-rate increase regarding library taxes. As I understand it, they said you had retroactively applied the taxes even though there was no statutory or constitutional authority to do so. Can you explain that?

Robinson v. Villines, 2009 Ark. 632. (December 17, 2009).
In this case, Judge Fox retroactively applied an increase in the library millage rates for the 2007 tax year. Taxpayers challenged Judge Fox’s decision to make them pay a retroactively applied tax. Fortunately, the supreme court found that Judge Fox clearly erred and reversed the decision saying there was no statutory or constitutional authority to retroactively apply the millage-rate increase to 2007 library taxes after the special election. Every judge voting said that Judge Fox was wrong.

5. So explain why citizens, should trust you to interpret and apply the law regarding taxation in ways that are consistent with constitutional principles.


ELECTION/BALLOT ISSUES

6. In this next case, you refused to hear a voter’s challenge to Tim Hutchinson being placed on the ballot based upon Hutchinson’s failure to meet the residency requirements as set out in the Arkansas Constitution. When I read the section 7-5-207(b) statute, that the Arkansas Supreme Court relied upon when it said you were wrong, it seems clear that the statute specifically authorized a voter to challenge a candidate’s failure to meet the constitutionally required residency requirement. In fact, the statute was designed to make sure that voters could have a candidate removed from the ballot if the candidate was not qualified. Can you explain why you refused to hear the case?

Tumey v. Daniels, 359 Ark. 256, 196 S.W.3d 479 (2004).

A citizen and voter filed a complaint in a pre-election challenge to a candidate’s (Tim Hutchinson’s) failure to meet the residency requirement of Article 5, § 4 . The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed Judge Fox’s refusal to hear the case saying that he erred in dismissing the complaint based on certain provisions under section 7-5-801. That section is only available to a competing candidate who claims to be the rightful nominee or victor. The voter who was challenging Hutchinson’s name on the ballot was not a competing candidate and that section did not apply at all to a voter’s challenge. In addition, a voter’s challenge of a candidate on this constitutional issue is the type specifically authorized by section 7-5-207(b). They reversed Judge Fox’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded for a determination of the merits of the suit.

7. When you sent out an order that took the names of Ralph Nader and his vice-presidential candidate off of the ballots, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed your decision and said that your interpretation of state law was unconstitutional. Actually, they went even further and said that your interpretation led to an absurd result. Again, why should we as citizens, trust your judgment when it comes to interpreting the Constitution?
Populist Party of Arkansas v. Chesterfield, 359 Ark. 58, 195 S.W.3d 354 (2004).
Quote from case:

Our own court has recognized that the right to become a candidate for public office is, under our form of government, a fundamental right, which should not be in any manner curtailed without good cause. Fisher v. Taylor, 210 Ark. 380, 196 S.W.2d 217 (1946). Any law or party rule, by which this inherent right of the citizen is diminished or impaired ought always to receive a liberal construction in favor of the citizen desiring to exercise the right. Id.

Statutes are not only presumed to be constitutional, but a court must construe a statute as constitutional if at all possible. Bunch v. State, 344 Ark. 730, 43 S.W.3d 132 (2001). As the Supreme Court has recognized, trial courts cannot impose a restriction that denies a group their right to associate or denies them access to the ballot unless narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 94 S. Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702 (1974).

Here, the manner in which the trial court's interpretation of Ark. Code Ann. § 7-8-302(5)(B) leads not only to an absurd result, but also renders the provision unconstitutional. This unconstitutional reading of the petitioning provision at issue infringes upon one of the fundamental civil liberties of our democracy, that of the secret ballot. Anderson, 664 F.2d 600. In sum, section Ark. Code Ann. § 7-8-302(5)(B) does not state that an electorate name “their” candidate for President or Vice President. The statute only requires that the signer of the petition state their desire that the named candidates appear on the ballot.


Populist Party of Arkansas v. Chesterfield, 359 Ark. 58, 66, 195 S.W.3d 354, 359 (2004).

Your website also says that you have a Master of Judicial Studies. I understand that the Judicial Studies Degree provides a formal academic setting in which trial judges or juvenile and family court judges can integrate technical studies of the judiciary with more academic ones in an effort to provide an intellectual assessment of the role of the American judiciary. But I did not see a statement on your page that describes your judicial philosophy. Can you explain your judicial philosophy to me?