Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 

Family courts are the arm of the state that routinely reaches farthest into the private lives of individuals and families, yet they are answerable to virtually no one. By their own assessment, according to Robert W. Page of the New Jersey Family Court, “the power of family court judges is almost unlimited.” Others have commented on their vast and intrusive powers less charitably. Malcolm X once called family courts “modern slavery,” and former Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas termed them “kangaroo” courts. One father was told by a judicial investigator in New Jersey, “The provisions of the US Constitution do not apply in domestic relations cases, since they are determined in a court of equity rather than a court of law.” The plunder of fathers invariably begins with the taking of their children. Despite formal legal equality between parents, some 85-90% of custody awards go to mothers. This is despite the fact that it is usually the mother who seeks the divorce, and most often without grounds of wrongdoing by the father. In fact a mother can have a half-dozen previous divorces, she can commit adultery, she can level false charges, she can assault the father, she can even abuse the children, and none of these has any bearing on a custody decision.

November 27th Hearing, Pro Tem Commissioner Bungi presiding:

10:20am - Pro Tem Commissioner Bungi finished reading The Petitioner’s statement and asked The Petitioner a couple of questions about what she wanted.

10:23am – Mr. Bungi turns to the respondent asks what is going on. The respondent replies in an understandably bewildered response that he has no idea what the petitioner is trying to do with these libelous statements. Mr. Bungi then replies in a very unprofessional and snide tone that the petitioner does not want anything to do with the respondent, and begins arguing the petitioners case for her against the respondent. After arguing the case for the petitioner Mr. Bungi states that he is ready to rule.

10:24am - Mr. Bungi states that he can not find the relevance of perjured testimony in the Petitioner’s statement, even though RCW 9A.72.010 clearly defines what a materially false statement is, and RCW 9.58.010 clearly defines libel and slander. As well as RCW 9A.72.020 which clearly lays out perjury in the first degree, and RCW 9A.72.030 perjury in the second degree. Giving him his choice of laws to follow but choosing to follow none of them. Clearly showing his official misconduct and defined by RCW 9A.80.010, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating his official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, and his failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100.

10:27am - Mr. Bungi stated that the protection order is to be in effect until it was reviewed at the January 17, 2001 hearing. The respondent asks to be allowed to attend our previously scheduled sign language classes, but Mr. Bungi would not address the issue. Again showing his official misconduct and defined by RCW 9A.80.010 and his failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100.

10:28am - Mr. Bungi states that he cannot determine what happened even after making his ruling one minute previously. Mr. Bungi clearly should have dismissed the entire case on the basis that, he, in his own words could not decide, after being confident a mere 5 minutes prior that the respondent was guilty. Therefore, the respondent had proven far more than just reasonable doubt even in Mr. Bungi's clearly biased  and indecisive mind, and the Order should never have been granted. Then Mr. Bungi again flip flops by claiming that he finds The Petitioner statement credible. Even though he just stated he can't determined what happened. Mr. Bungi is now completely aware of The Petitioner’s false swearing pursuant to RCW 9A.72.040 and libelous content pursuant to RCW 9.58.010

10:29am - The respondent asks how to fight this decision. Mr. Bungi stated he could not give legal advice.  Yet, the law clearly states that he is allowed to inform the respondent of his right to review or appeal. Showing gross negligence, bias, and incompetence on his part. As well as his official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(b), unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180(13), willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating his official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, denying the respondent of his legal rights, which in turn denied the respondent of his civil rights as defined by RCW 9.91.010.

10:30am - The respondent tells Mr. Bungi that he had read The Petitioner’s entire statement yet only heard two of the respondents multiple points.  The respondent also states that Mr. Bungi had not crossed the petitioner on any of the respondents points. Whereas he did cross the respondent on the petitioners statements. Not only is this is an incredibly biased act, but Mr. Bungi never did allow any more arguments on behalf of the respondent even though he knew there were several more. Mr. Bungi was clearly showing favoritism to the petitioner.  Although the respondent presented valid points to which Mr. Bungi should have crossed The Petitioner. Mr. Bungi in an irritated voice stated he had made his ruling. These are more instances of official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(b), unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180(13), willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating his official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080,and failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100

Note - Mr. Bungi clearly wrote “reviewable after investigation,” and was exceedingly clear that the Order of Protection was only in effect until review on January 17, 2001. The court clerk fraudulently checked the box that said for one year, as defined by RCW 9A.60.010(6). Thereby tampering with physical evidence pursuant to RCW 9A.72.150(1)(a). These acts show she is guilty of making false certificate and defined by RCW 42.20.050.

This Page Created by AAAdvanced Engineering Concepts

Send Questions or Comments to: spolnac@yahoo.com 

Copyright © 2003