The Gavel of Damocles Falls on Rifqa
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Video Rally for Rifqa P-1
Video Rally for Rifqa P-2
In the most egregious violation of Rifqa's Bary's civil rights, Rifqa is being denied essential contact
with the outside world.
Her laptop has been confiscated. And now friends of hers are being denied the right to see her. And the couple of people who
were allowed to see her in the past were fingerprinted.
She has been in
Can any outside pressure be applied? How do we know
she is all right? How do we know she is not being psychologically pressured?
She has not been granted pastoral care. She is being denied the freedom to
practice her religion. Where are Rifqa's protectors? Who speaks for
Rifqa?
Inmates in prison get visits from their clergy. She is not being afforded
the right of prisoners. She has not committed any crime. Why can't friends see
her? One of the people who spoke to me on
the record was Jamal Jivanjee (the others, who feared retribution
for Rifqa and themselves, asked to remain anonymous). He has been denied
visitation. Why can't Jamal Jivanjee see her? He has requested a visit and
Rifqa requested a visit from Jivanjee. He called Rifqa's lawyers, Franklin
Child Services, and got the run around again
and again. He calls daily.
Bottom line. No one knows whats going on. Why the secrecy? Why the cloak and
dagger? Why the unintended enforcement of sharia law?
UPDATE: I asked John Jay,
a former prosecutor in Juvenile court,
to help track down the new court dates. Here is his frustrating report:
i was more than a little
shocked when her trial on the merits in the dependency case was set for
november 16, 2009 feeling that this setting following so quickly upon the
transfer of her case from florida gave neither counsel, nor the social agencies
and police agencies who might be charged with investigating the facts and
circumstances of the case little time for preparation of authorities and
arguments.
i
really wasn’t too surprised when word leaked out, the afternoon of tuesday,
november 10th, just two (2) court/business days before trial that the case was
to be continued. this seemed a bit calculated to avoid
the rally planned by the proprietor of atlasshrugs for the same date, but the
avoidance of public controversy is not entirely new to courts & court
proceedings, nor was the lateness of the continuance. i
called the clerk’s office late tuesday afternoon, and was told no papers with
regard to court settings had been filed with the clerk as of that date, again
not surprising, because the physical transfer of such things takes time.
i was totally shocked, however,
about subsequent events as i tried to confirm the continuance, and tried to
find out the new court settings from the franklin
county juvenile court clerk’s office.-- shortly before noon on
thursday (franklin county having been shut down on veteran’s day, wednesday the
11th), i called the clerk’s office at 614.462.4411, and inquired of the clerk
if i might receive confirmation of the striking of the hearing on dependency on
the 16th, and also confirmation of the date to which the hearing had been
continued.
i was
informed over the phone that i could not be told that information, either with
regard to confirmation of the striking of the hearing, or any date to which it
had been continued. the clerk went out of her way to
tell me that the matters involving the dependency were confidential as to the
juvenile, and that such information could not be released to me in the juvenile
dependency case, franklin county juvenile court case no.: 09JU12299. i inquired of the court
about the companion “incorrigible child” proceeding, juvenile court case no.:
09JU12090, and the clerk of the court told me without hesitation that the 16
november hearing was stricken, and that the case had been reset for hearing on
22 december 2009.
i informed the court that i had
practiced law for 25 years in washington state, much of it in juvenile criminal
and dependency proceedings, and that while matters in juvenile “social files” were most certainly
confidential, e.g., those things pertaining to case worker reports on abuse and
negligent, and psychological evaluations
and such like, … , those matters relating to court pleadings and orders were
open to the public, as were all court proceedings unless specifically closed by
the court.
the
clerk softened a bit, and changed her tune, considerably.
she
said that she would search the files, and look to see if any orders or clerk’s
minutes had come up with the files indicating either a striking of the hearing,
or a continuance date.
none
had.
we
chatted a little bit. it became obvious from
discussing this with the clerk that the dependency proceeding was regarded as a
high profile case, and that edicts had come down from the court to put the
quietus on the proceedings. this was obvious when i
asked the clerk, why, if the dependency proceedings were confidential because
involving a juvenile was it o.k. for the clerk’s office to release the striking
of the hearing and its resetting to the 22nd of december in the incorrigible
child case? the clerk as much admitted to me, that
that was the way the court wanted it.
she
suggested i call again friday afternoon, late.
i
called again, the afternoon of 13 november, friday, to see if i could get the
hearing situation clarified. i spoke to the same
clerk, and inquired of the hearing settings. she said
that no paper work, either clerk’s minutes or court orders had come up with
regard to the dependency case, that she could find upon inspection of the file.
she did, however, confirm that the hearing set for 16
november had been stricken. she did not, however, find
it either humorous or insightful of me when I asked her how this could be known
to the clerk’s office, in the absence of written orders striking the hearing
being entered into the file. she also reiterated the
previous position of the clerk’s office that no documents from the court had
found their way into the court clerks file, some two full business days from
when i first made inquiry into this subject.
friends,
this is disingenuous at best.
this is
the way a court docket works. first, nothing is done
in court on a case without the court’s file being present at the bench, usually
in possession of an in-court clerk, and the file is handed up to the judge as
the case is called. secondly, nothing is done that is
not memorialized by a paper trail, and this applies first and foremost to court
settings and dates. if a continuance hearing was held
by agreement of the parties, it is memorialized by paper, and if a hearing is
stricken upon either motion of the parties or by the motion of the court, that
is memorialized by a brief order, if a notation order only. thirdly, and this
is very important, cases are not left hanging in the void, or in hiatus: when
the case is finished for the day, and before it leaves the purview of the
judge, it has a new date agreed upon, entered, by written order or notice of
hearing signed by the judge, and signed and distributed to the court and the
parties. finally, when the matter is concluded, the
originals of all of this are entered into the file by the in-court clerk if the
court is efficient, or attached to the same pile of files that are taken back
to the main court clerk’s office for re-filing. before
the files go back into the stacks, the orders are in the file jackets, court
clerk’s minutes are filled out, and any court orders or dates are entered into
the computers, and docket entries made.
it must
be done that way. look to the court clerk’s case
number on rifqa’s dependency case. it is file number
12,299 for calendar year 2009
in juvenile court,
the
inescapable conclusion, therefore, and the worst case scenario, is that the
judges of the franklin county juvenile court told the juvenile court clerks to
lie about, or to withhold information about, the status of rifqa bary’s case. when the clerk on friday refused to tell me the settings
with regard to 09JU12299, the dependency case, she either had all relevant
documents with regard to settings before her in the file, or upon the computer
screen where such entries are also placed.
she
lied to me when she said there was no information on this. this
is never, ever “no information” in a court file on settings. it
may take a while for the substance of a court order to be drawn up, presented
to all parties with notice, and signed by a judge on matters of substance and
on the merits, … , but as to court setting dates, … , uh uh, that stuff is
signed, dated and entered immediately.
files
go nowhere without this information. this information
is never absent from a file.
the
conclusion is, again, inescapable. the judges have put
the gloms on this dependency case. they are
suppressing information that should be available to the public.