Impeach Judge Bradford!
    It takes a lot to enlist me on a cause. This guy's actions crossed that line.

    Who he is: Judge Cale J. Bradford is the chief judge of the Marion County  Superior Court (in Indianapolis).
    Why he should be impeached  He thinks the 21st century should look like the 15th.

     Religious persecution by the state is something that we rarely run into in the United States. Yet, Judge Bradford has decided to do just that. In 2004, a divorce custody case came to his court. Both parents were Wiccans (a religion which is recognized by the IRS and has at least 300,000 followers). Judge Bradford took offense with their beliefs and took extra-legal steps. He barred them from celebrating holidays with their son.
    This is because the boy was attending a Catholic school at the time, and presenting two different belief systems to him was deemed harmful. I'm guessing that Bradford is a FOX News Network viewer. Why see both sides of something when you already know that only one side is right?
    His ruling was based on a Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau report which stated : "There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages."
    Judge Bradford clearly overstepped the matter before him when he forbid either parent from sharing "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals" with their son. Thankfully, the power to pick and choose which religions are covered by the First Amendment is not given out to Superior Court judges. An appeals court overturned Bradford's ruling.
    Yet, even with this hanging over him, Judge Bradford has been appointed to head the juvenile division of the court with "the authority to make administrative and policy decisions".

    Clearly, the internal system isn't working. It's time more people spoke up.
    What can you do?
    First: Tell more people about this. Send e-mails and strike up conversations. Inquisitors don't do well in the public eye.
    Secondly: Send a complaint letter to the INDIANA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS at:
115 W. Washington St., Suite 1080, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 or call them at (317) 232-4706. Here's a copy of their complaint form. The cause number of the case:  49D010305DR000898 and there are quite a few rules of judicial conduct Bradford broke.

    Here are those that I noted in my letter (which was replied to with the note that no action has been taken):

 

 

        Violations of the Rules of Judicial Conduct:

          “Canon 1: A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary”
– In decreeing what is and is not a mainstream religion, Judge Bradford has entangled the court in a question that can only be damaging to its integrity.
“Canon 2. A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All the Judge's Activities” &"Canon 3. A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently”
-Judge Bradford has failed to show impartiality, and by applying his personal views where they are not shared by either parent, has thrown into question his ability to be impartial in future cases. In future cases, how will he comport himself should one parent share his faith, when the other is a member of a religion he does not accept? In this way, he fails the test laid out in the Code.
-Further, section C) of Canon 2 specifies “A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.” In this situation, Judge Bradford is turning the court into such an organization.
-And, section (7) of Canon 3 specifies “A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, personal characteristics or status, against parties, witnesses, counsel, or others.” It is less clear, but reasonable to assume, that the judge may not engage in these activities him or herself.
-Finally, the Commentary for Canon 3 contains the following “A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented.” Neither parent nor their representatives presented arguments that would reasonably lead to the Judge Bradford’s conditions.
Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (I’m not sure if Judge Bradford is currently qualified to practice law in Indiana after his judicial term expires, but I think it is likely and that the rules of conduct for Lawyers apply):
“8.4 It is professional misconduct for a Lawyer to… (g) engage in conduct, in a professional capacity, manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, or similar factors.”
-Judge Bradford’s decision shows extreme bias against the multitude of religions other than his own, and illustrates conduct that is harmful to their practitioners.
First Amendment Violation   
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
-This case clearly lies on the belief side of the “Belief-Conduct” clause established in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304 (1940). By its nature, belief is an absolute and cannot be regulated by the State. To quote the majority decision: “In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No one would contest the proposition that a state may not, by statute, wholly deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee."
    That's all I've got for now. -BB
    You can go back to my blog though...
    This has been another of
Bemused Berserker's eclectic postings