Judge Childers damaged the public’s confidence in the judicial system and tried to influence the appeal of the AMH case

Shaoqiang He

Memphis, TN 38018

February 9, 2005

 

 

 

 

      

Joe G. Riley, Disciplinary Counsel

115 LAKE STREET

PO

BOX 40

RIDGELY, TN 38080

 

Re: Complaint against Judge Robert L. Childers, File No. 0402301, Rebuttal to Childers’ January 28, 2005 Response

 

Dear Judge Riley,

 

In your December 21, 2004 letter to Judge Childers, you requested him to “address as specifically as possible all matters” raised in our complaint and subsequent communications. In previous rebuttal to Childers, we painstakingly abridged our core charges and put them in a table format, so Childers can easily refer to it and respond. Once again, Judge Childers refused to respond to the core charges but spent amble time on other issues, which we did not emphasize in the original complaint. To avoid being distracted from the core charges, including bias, prejudice, prejudgment, lying and fabrication of evidence, we will re-emphasize our request for Childers to answer these key issues. We will also rebut Childers’ January 28, 2005 response.

 

 

Childers’ continued refusal to specifically address the core charges based on the Code of Judicial Conduct and our position

Childers’ original response to charges 4-15 were simple denials. In his new response, he further contends that it is improper for him to respond because the case is under appeal. The fact is, these charges are solely judicial misconduct charges and are unrelated to the appeal. These charges are about Childers conduct in handling the case, the appeal is to attack the decision from the standard of law. These two are separable matters. And there is a no rule to state that because a case is under appeal, then the Judge can’t be charged with misconduct because of the way he made the decision.

 

We are not merely talking about casual “inconsistencies” in Childers’ ruling, but a consistent pattern of bias, prejudice, prejudgment and even fabrication of evidence. These are violations of specific sections of the Canons 1 and 3 of the code of judicial conduct, as we pointed out in our complaint and our previous communications.

 

The Disciplinary Counsel has apparently agreed with our view and you have requested twice that Childers address all fifteen charges as specific as possible. Twice, Childers evaded the tough questions. Childers’ evading of the tough charges only demonstrated that in front of the indisputable facts, he has no answers, because any reasonable human being would agree that all we stated in the charges are true, and Childers has clearly violated the Code.

 

To further demonstrate that this charge of judicial misconduct against Childers is independent of the appeal process, so Childers will have one less excuse to avoiding answering charges 4-15, we are enclosing some of the Amicus briefs filed by third parties of the case. As you can see, the appeal does not talk about judicial misconduct, and our judicial misconduct charges do not interfere with or relate to the appeal. The appeal talks about the application of adoption and TPR law, our charges are about Childers’ misconduct.

 

Therefore, we request once again that Judge Childers to answer the charges in detail and not to hide under the pretense that he is concerned about the appeal process; he certainly had no such concern when he issued his public statement on TV on May 14, 2004.

 

Of course, Judge Childers has the right to be silent. If Childers continues to refuse to answer those specific charges, we will prepare one final complaint with charges 4 to 15 emphasized, and Childers should not be given additional opportunity to respond any further, so the Court of Judiciary can proceed.

 

 

 

 

Judge Childers damaged the public’s confidence in the judicial system and tried to influence the appeal of the AMH case, his excuses are all false

 

On May 12, 13, 14, 2004, before Childers’ public statement, there were no news or media attacking the judiciary. There were people calling Childers a racist according to the WREG report, but there were no attacks on the judiciary as a whole. Even the Hes did not attack the judiciary; on the contrary, the Hes openly expressed their confidence in the US judicial system in rendering the final justice AFTER the Childers ruling. Our May 18, 2004 statement, which called Honorable Childers “a biased, prejudiced and lying judge”, did not attack the judiciary (we hope that Childers is not using our May 18 statement as excuse for his May 14 statement). The Hes are working with the judiciary according to its own Code to correct the wrongs done by Childers.

 

There is a qualitative distinction between the Judiciary and Judge Childers. Judge Childers and all of us know this distinction. Even though Judge Childers holds an important position in the Tennessee judicial system, he does not equate to the judiciary.

 

Childers claimed that his May 14, 2004 public statement was made to defend against “the unwarranted attacks against the judiciary”, because the “The judiciary cannot and should not allow such charges to un-responded to”.

 

Since there were no attacks on the judiciary due to the AMH case on or before May 14, 2004, Childers’ excuse for his public statement is completely false.

 

 

In Charge No 2 of our complaint, we pointed out that Childers’ open display of his prejudice and malice damaged the public’s confidence in the judicial system.

 

Childers quoted the Canon 1 of the Code on Judge’s action without fear or favor, our complaint clearly showed that Childers had given Bakers all the favor they could possibly get, by choosing only those Baker testimonies favorable to the Bakers, while discrediting all expert and lay testimonies for the Hes. Childers did not quote the following text in Canon 1 (commentary) of the Code of Judicial Conduct:

Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.”

 

Childers’ has violated the Code and has done injury to the system. We charge him according to the Code.

 

We are asking the Court of Judiciary to repair the damages caused by Childers by holding him accountable for his violations of the Code.

 

 

 

 

Childers’ violation the confidentiality of the adoption case is unlawful and his claim that the key information has been previously published is completely false

TN code annotated 36-1-126.

Record kept under seal - Confidential records - Access to certain records - Preservation of records.

“Upon conclusion of all termination of parental rights proceedings which were filed in conjunction with an adoption proceeding; all adoption records, court reports, home studies, preliminary home studies, other reports or other documents or papers or other information concerning the placement or attempted placement of a person for adoption, or other information concerning the litigation of the adoption or attempted adoption of a person which information is in the office of the judge or clerk of the court where the adoption was filed or where the surrender or confirmation of parental consent or revocation of a surrender or parental consent was taken, or any such records, reports, or documents in the offices of a licensed child-placing agency, a licensed clinical social worker, or in the county, regional or state offices of the department of health, or in the county, district, and state offices of the department of children's services, shall be placed and remain under seal, except as provided herein or in § 36-1-118(e)(4), or in title 68, and shall be confidential and shall be disclosed only as provided in this part. ”

 

 

The above statue has a broad “catch all” phrase to include “other reports or other documents or papers or other information”. Childers claim that the statue does not cover “a Memorandum Opinion” is simply self-serving and clearly against the intention of this statue, that is to protect the identity of the children in adoption.

 

During the trial, Childers repeatedly admonished the media not to release any confidential documents or information. The media complied with the order of the Court, and acted responsibly, and they did not release those detailed data in Childers’ ruling. Having media in Court room does not mean all information is public. Unlike what’s being claimed by Childers, some of the detailed information released by Childers had never been published by media before.

 

By sending his ruling onto the internet, Childers deliberately released a lot of confidential data to the public for the first time.

 

Childers again made a completely false statement to the Court of Judiciary by claiming that “The only thing new contained in the Memorandum Opinion and Order” was his analysis.

 

Regarding the specific data, such as Hes and Bakers’ birthday, AMH’s medical history, etc, Childers wrote: “All of the above information came out during the public trial which was attended by the press and disseminated to the world, via the international news outlets”. This is a blank lie.

 

Can Childers tell us, when were the following pieces of information quoted from Childers’ ruling disseminated to the world via international news?

 

Mr. Baker was born September 29, 1958, in Memphis, Tennessee.

 Mrs. Baker was born July 24, 1961, in North Carolina.

 Mr. and Mrs. Baker have been married to each other and living together since July 12, 1982.

Mrs. Baker had surgery in August 1998, to reverse an earlier tubal ligation

 

Mr. He was born July 18, 1964

Mrs. He was born on March 21, 1968

Mr. He filed an acknowledgment of paternity on March 15, 2002. 

Shaio-Qiang He and Qin Luo were legally married in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, on January 7, 2002.

After AMH’s birth on January 28, 1999, AMH experienced respiratory distress, which required AMH to remain in the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit for eleven days. 

On May 7, 2000, the Hes brought two people, Barney and Rosemary Binion, with them to the Bakers’ home to visit AMH. 

 

These are just tiny samples of the vast amount of confidential data Childers released to the public for the first time. Childers, fully aware of the law that mandates protection of the identity of the child, willfully released all information that completely revealed the identity of the child on the internet.

 

 

 

Childers’ story on the dissemination of the ruling invites a closer scrutiny

 

Childers now claims that he sent not one but two emails to the four attorneys about the ruling on May 12, 2004. But the fact remains that David Siegel and Richard Gordon never received the emails.

 

We don’t believe that emails can be qualified as official delivery of a Court ruling. Then, Childers also claims that hard copies of the ruling were put in the mail room, but his story stopped there. Were the copies mailed out or not?

 

Siegel and Gordon never received the hard copies, nor the emails.

 

It is simply hard to believe that the email system and USPS failed on the same day on the same two people.

 

There is also the question of when Childers sent the ruling to the media by email.

 

Although we did not emphasize the point that Siegel and Gordon never received the ruling in our original complaint, we request the Court of Judiciary to verify the Childers’ claims by obtaining the relevant records and computer logs. We have proved in Charge No 7, Childers is dishonest, and he is continuing to make false statements in his responses to the court of judiciary.

 

 

Conclusion

We have shown once again that Childers is making false statements in an effort to cover his misconduct. No matter what he tries, truth and justice can’t and won’t be suppressed. Justice will prevail and will be served. As we stated above, if Childers continues to evade the core charges, we will prepare a final complaint and request the Court of Judiciary to proceed without giving Childers further opportunity to drag on this process.

 

 

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

 

Shaoqiang (Jack) He
Casey (Qin Luo) He

 

Attached: Amicus briefs

 


Home > Judicial Misconduct & Cover up > Judge Childers damaged the public’s confidence in the judicial system and tried to influence the appeal of the AMH case
Login