Judge T. Arthur Ritchie Family Court Ritchie, Clark County, Nevada Obstruction of justice, violation of civil rights and constitutional rights, child endangerment, nonfeasance, slavery, kidnapping and extortion Las Vegas Nevada
JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETIES
That the Plaintiff believes and alleges that the court has ignored relevant evidence to this case and has made rulings that are detrimental and prejudicial against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff now requests that the order be amended or that this case be moved to another department in front of a judge who is willing to look at all the facts and evidence.
John Wayne Gacy masqueraded as a clown that loved children. He loved at least 33 them to death. Judge Ritchie is masquerading as a judge who cares about children and families.
1. That the minor child #1 has been on five illegal drugs while in the custody of the Defendant and the exhibited drug test results provided to this court have been ignored by this court.
2. That the minor child #2 has been expelled from school for drugs and behavior problems and this fact is being ignored by this court.
3. That the minor child #3 has been suspended twice in the last two months for behavioral problems and this fact is being ignored by this court.
4. That four of the children's close friends have been killed in the past five months as a result of their behavior, which is identical behavior of that of the children's and this fact is being ignored by this court.
5. That the Defendant has a superior income ($60,000 per year), three times that of the Plaintiff this fact is being ignored by this court.
6. That the Defendant has repeatedly violated court orders discussing court issues with the children constituting emotional abuse and this fact is being ignored by this court.
7. That the Defendant's apparent interest is in money, rather than caring for and supervising the children properly and this fact is being ignored by this court.
8. That the Plaintiff was the parent that suspected and exposed the drug use of the three minor children four years ago and again recently as documented in this case and this fact is being ignored by this court.
9. That the court has allowed false allegations by the Defendant that child #1 and the Plaintiff were arrested, without rebuttal and this fact is being ignored by this court.
10. That the children's counselor's of eight months have not been permitted to contribute their findings and this fact is being ignored by this court.
11. That the Plaintiff's equal protection and equal access rights to the children and to due process have been unjustly denied and this fact is being ignored by this court.
12. That the statistics filed and exhibited by the Plaintiff on how poorly children do without certain parents are being ignored by this court and the consequences are detrimental to the minor children.
13. That the recent decisions of this court will place the Plaintiff in a situation of poverty and expected to live on $1000 per month with no possible way to obtain any assistance.
14. That the these three minor children clearly need close supervision as recommended by the family therapists, which cannot be, and will not be provided by the Defendant, and this fact is being ignored by this court.
15. That the court has made no recommendation or ruling whatsoever to help rehabilitate these children.
16. That the history of how these children have been raised by the Defendant for ten years, and how they are currently being raised and improperly supervised, which has brought the children into their current dilemma is being ignored by this court.
17. That the court has dismissed the importance of and has made no recommendations or rulings to attempt to rebuild a relationship with the Plaintiff and the minor child #1 or to be sure that the minor child is drug free.
18. That in spite of the Plaintiff having joint legal custody, the court has permitted the Defendant to place all three children on amphetamines and antidepressants without prior discussion or consent of the Plaintiff and this fact is being ignored by this court.
19. That the court has not mandated the Defendant to answer interrogatories submitted by the Plaintiff and this fact is being ignored by this court.
20. That the court is willingly and knowingly leaving these three minor children in an environment in which they will not be properly supervised or rehabilitated.
21. That the Defendant has historically used all child support money paid by the Plaintiff to fund a legal defense and said payments have never been used for the welfare of the minor children, but instead to keep them in a dysfunctional home and this fact is being ignored by this court.
22. That the court has refused to take all exhibits relevant to this case and has unjustly reprimanded the Plaintiff for attempting to pursue his due process rights and is in fact obstructing justice.
23. That although the Plaintiff has submitted to and survived an extensive Psychological Evaluation, the Defendant has not been ordered the same, thereby creating bias and the mental health of the Defendant is a mystery to this court and this fact is being ignored by this court.
24. That the court has used the bailiff to try and intimidate the Plaintiff when attempting to defend oneself and argue the case, causing undue stress and bias against the Plaintiff, while at the same time permitting the Defendant's attorney, verbose diatribes with lies and attacks against the Plaintiff.
25. That the Defendant's has violated numerous court rules, including but not limited to failing to abide by the ethics of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys, which is required under Nevada law and this fact is being ignored by this court.
26. That the court has ordered the Plaintiff to pay $250 of the Defendant's attorney's fees and the Plaintiff did not hire said attorney.
27. That the minor children are at risk and are being harmed and are in danger residing in the Defendant's home and this fact is being ignored by this court.
28. That Las Vegas is a dangerous place for teenagers to be unsupervised and this fact is being ignored by this court.
29. That to force a parent into poverty and to pay another parent to improperly supervise children and keep in a dangerous situation is a form of kidnapping, extortion, and slavery.
Alan
Henderson, Nevada
U.S.A.
4 Updates & Rebuttals
Lori
Oklahoma City,Oklahoma,
U.S.A.
Family courts a joke!!
#5Consumer Comment
Thu, December 29, 2005
This seems to be a nationwide problem. Family Courts don't have the childrens best interests at heart.
Here in Oklahoma there was a little girl that was beaten to death in her home. Despite numerous complaints of abuse by doctors and DHS recommending the child be removed from the home, the idiot Judge recommended she return to this abusive home.
Now she is dead and the suspect, her stepfather, is out on bail. I hope this Judge sleeps well at night!
Alan
Kingman,Arizona,
U.S.A.
my daughter has become what I had feared. She has been involved in pornography Due to the actions and inaction of Dr. Philip G. Helding, Attorney Mary Burns, Attorney Laurel Hart, and Dr. Theodore Allchin
#5Author of original report
Wed, December 28, 2005
Due to the actions and inaction of Dr. Philip G. Helding, Attorney Mary Burns, Attorney Laurel Hart, and Dr. Theodore Allchin, my daughter has become what I had feared. She has been involved in pornography, was recently arrested for burglary.
She runs with a group of tattooed, pierced punkers. One of them committed assault with a deadly weapon against me at my home while I was attempting to stop my daughter from driving while intoxicated. She has a new tattoo; a skull and cross bones. She is traveling with 3 punkers and is homeless.
This is what family court corruption will do to you and yours. Will it ever end? Only if people wake up and take back our rights to have equal access to our children and demand that these white collar criminals be indicted.
Also responsible for the condition of my daughter are those who failed to intervene and allow me to protect my daughter from harm: Clark County (Las Vegas) Nevada Family Court Judges: Steven Jones, William O. Voy, T. Arthur Ritchie and Stephen Compan.
Also responsible in Las Vegas: Attorney Rhonda Mushkin, Stephanie Holland, Psychologist, Dr. Corydon G. Clark, Child Psychiatrist and Child Protective Services in Chicago and Las Vegas.
Creating criminals from children creates revenue for the ever-growing divorce industry and prison system. They make free people into felons and take away their rights.
Land of the free and home of the brave?
Alan
Henderson,Nevada,
U.S.A.
Judge Ritchie holds Ex Parte Hearing Violating Nevada Judicial Cannons
#5Author of original report
Thu, July 29, 2004
Ex Parte Definition
ex parte done by one party only; as in, an ex parte communication is where one party to a dispute communicates to a judge without the other parties' presence.
Canon 2 of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct states:
A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities.
Canon 3B(7) states:
A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding except that:
(a) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications for scheduling, administrative purposes or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits are authorized; provided:
(i) The judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication, and
(ii) The judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.
On July 19th, 2004, Judge Ritchie held an ex parte hearing on my case. Although I clearly stated in my pleadings, that my Motion for Reconsideration was to be decided on written pleadings and no oral argument is required, he permitted opposing counsel, Daniel S. Harris, oral argument, which resulted in $500 sanctions against me, further damaging and false allegations, and absolutely no remedy to help my children, who are in danger and need of help.
Art Ritchie is masquerading as a judge, he obviously thinks he is above the law. He should be removed from the bench and sanctioned for misconduct.
Alan
Henderson,Nevada,
U.S.A.
System fails murdered woman
#5Author of original report
Sat, July 24, 2004
Las Vegas SUN
April 23, 2003
Columnist Jeff German: System fails murdered woman
Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4067.
Marina Cannon did everything she was supposed to do to protect herself from her estranged husband, Vitaly Zakouto, in the months leading to her Dec. 23, 2000, death.
She obtained a restraining order to keep him away from her. She bought a new home under a different name and installed a high-tech security system. She even purchased a handgun.
For a while, the legal system was on her side, too. In August 2000 Family Court Judge Art Ritchie ordered Zakouto to spend 50 days in jail for breaking into her home in violation of the restraining order, and the district attorney's office later filed felony charges of aggravated stalking against Zakouto.
But when Cannon needed the system the most, it failed her.
On Nov. 22 she pleaded with Ritchie to again jail Zakouto, who had made bail on the criminal charges, for once more breaking into her home. She predicted that Zakouto was heading down a path of violent behavior and would end up killing her.
Ritchie told Cannon she didn't show him enough evidence to put Zakouto in jail, but he left the door open for another hearing.
No hearing, however, ever took place, and a month later Zakouto again broke into Cannon's home, this time killing her.
Late last week, Zakouto was convicted of murder, and a jury recommended that he spend the rest of his life in prison without parole.
Cannon's death exposed flaws in a legal system designed to punish people for committing crimes, rather than preventing crimes from being committed.
Jason Jaeger, one of Cannon's sons, blames Ritchie for letting down his mother.
"He didn't have the vision to see that this guy was a psychotic who was going to keep doing it over and over again," Jaeger said. "Everybody else saw it, why didn't he see it?"
Ritchie insisted that he did everything within the law to help Cannon.
"You'll feel sick about any case in which something like this happens," he said. "You look at yourself and ask what could you have done differently?"
Judges often are hesitant to take decisive action in domestic abuse cases because they must protect the rights of both the victim and the perpetrator. There is potential for both sides to take advantage of the system.
The problem is the system doesn't know how to handle people like Zakouto, who are so obsessed with hurting their spouse, they're willing to break the law to do it.
"Nobody ever thinks domestic violence equals death," said Kathleen Brooks, associate director of Safe Nest, an organization devoted to helping victims of domestic abuse. "They always think it will be resolved."
What the system should learn from Cannon's death is that better training is needed, from the cops on the street to the judges on the bench, to spot potential life-threatening cases of domestic abuse.
This may require judges to become more pro-active and make even tougher calls.
If nothing changes, Marina Cannon won't be the last victim of domestic abuse failed by the system.