- Interested in ending family court murders? Contact Bonnie@personalpublicrelations.com
- What if mainstream media staffed Family Court, the busiest court in the nation, with a beat reporter? Besides demonstrating media valued children, would regular reporting as to how family courts function contribute to ending the problem of family court murders?
- Did you know in California, of the eight reasons listed for Supervised visitation, four involve criminal acts either on or impacting children? What about your state?
- Are you aware judges regularly refuse to enforce restraining orders?
- Are you aware American culture finds children valuable; for marketing purposes, (toys, clothes, alcohol, and legal services), but the legal industry specifically lobbies against allowing children their own voice in court?
- Are you aware the U.S. Supreme Court ruled police officers aren't "legally required" to enforce restraining orders?
- Are you aware schools have policies for bullies - but generally refuse to enforce them?
- Are you aware how many children are killed as a result of family court orders?
- Are you aware our tax dollars support misogyny?
- Were you aware both LA PD and the DA aggressively prosecuted the man who exposed LA PD officers beating their wives and girlfriends? Did you know DA's don't trust the jury system?
- Are you aware the Elkins Task Force refused to allow the public to join - after press releases asking their help?
A lack of awareness causes harm.
Although any number of people might claim to be too busy to concern themselves with monitoring government or, worrying about their neighbors, we mention the business of being a good citizen involves vigilance. This site was created to make it easier to be aware.
We do so because the Chief Justice of the nation's most heavily populated state, is seemingly too insulated to notice judges are protecting criminals in family court; and it's getting women and children killed.
We also do so because of the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal which found the State was liable for protecting people should they have to do business with the courts. The California Supreme Court reversed, saying the State was not liable for protecting Eileen Zelig, who told any bailiff who would listen, her physician ex husband was going to kill her. Which he did.
In fact, Dr. Zelig shot Eileen dead, in front of their six year old daughter, in the court hallway.
The surviving family members sued.
Judge George said, (See AP report below) the State was not responsible. However, the same Judge Ronald George who was interviewed several times after Nevada's Judge Weller was shot by Darren Mack, worried at length how to protect judges. At that point the Federal Court Security improvement Act to protect judges and other court personnel, blossomed.
Chief Justice Ronald George made clear judges are to be protected. Women and children? Not so much.
GOVERNMENT NOT LIABLE FOR COURT VIOLENCE
Calif-Victims of violence inside courthouses can't sue counties and sheriff's departments charged with overseeing the buildings, the state Supreme Court ruled.
Public entities in general are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime, the court ruled in unanimously overturning an appeals court decision. Allowing such lawsuits could expose government agencies to liability on many of their properties, Chief Justice Ronald M.George wrote. The case stemmed from a 1995 slaying of a woman inside the downtown Los Angeles County courthouse.
Eileen Zelig, 40, who said she lived in mortal terror of her ex-husband, was killed when Harry Zelig shot her in the chest after a divorce proceeding in which he said she was trying to seize his car. The couple's 6 year old daughter was seen shrieking in distress after the shooting as bystanders raced for cover. The husband was later convicted and sentenced to 29 years to life.
Local governments anxiously awaited Monday's court decision, fearing the Supreme Court could open a Pandora's box of liability if it sided with the appeals court. "The implications were very scary from the point of view of what potentially could be the scope of liability for municipalities," said attorney Steven J. Renick, who argued the case on behalf of Los Angeles County.
Feminist groups criticized the ruling, saying women who use the courts for family law matters --such as divorce, child custody and restraining orders-- are in danger. "These women are required to go to the courthouse, and this is the only time they'll see their abuser," said LeAnna Gutierrez, an attorney with the Calif. Women's Law Center. "They're required to face the abuser and the state has no actual duty to protect them while they're there."
The appeals court said counties have "a duty to take reasonable steps to provide safe courthouses to those who enter." But George wrote that the danger faced by Zelig that her husband would shoot her "was the same inside the courthouse as outside."
Report a killer judge. Be a part of the solution.