PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

Jets star and former University of Michigan wide receiver Braylon Edwards is being sued for child support by a former contestant on "America's Next Top Model," the New York Post
reported Friday.

Edwards reportedly fathered a child with Nik Pace, who's suing for up to $70,000 a month.

The Post quoted Pace's lawyer, Raoul Felder, as saying Edwards tried to be recognized as the father in Georgia, where child support payments would likely be lower. Pace is suing in New York.

"Braylon had tried to get the case litigated in Georgia because they are traditionally less generous with child support payments," Felder told the Post. "It's a cold, calculated act to pay less money."

Edwards, 26, doesn't see it that way, at all. "Braylon is a proud father who has loved and supported his child since before he was born," Edwards' lawyer, Randy Kessler, told the Post. "He filed in June to declare himself the legal father and she objected."

New York State’s judges have not had a pay raise in 10 years, and at least some of them are angry about it. The delay and subsequent hard feelings have led to suggestions that there has been a secretive judicial job action to pressure the legislature to give judges more money.

On Monday, in the first case of its kind, the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct censured an upstate county court judge for openly declaring in mass e-mail messages to other judges that refusing to handle certain kinds of cases was “a tactic” and “a weapon” that could help pry a pay increase out of “those clowns” in Albany.

The commission had found that the judge, Larry M. Himelein of Cattaraugus County in western New York, sought to get other judges to refuse to handle cases filed by law firms where the state’s part-time state legislators work as lawyers.

“It has nothing to do with whether I could be impartial, I really believe this is the only weapon we have,” Judge Himelein wrote. The only punishment more severe than a censure is the removal of a judge from office.

The conduct commission’s decision came as the 10-year dispute over judicial salaries is headed to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, on Jan 12. The court is to consider three separate lawsuits by judges against the state challenging the long interval without a pay raise.

Justices of the Supreme Court, the state’s highest-level trial court, earn $136,700 a year. County judges earn a minimum of $119,800. Over the last few years, the Legislature has failed on several occasions to raise judicial pay. With the state’s current fiscal problems, the prospects for a raise have not grown any brighter.

The Court of Appeals case has raised a series of awkward questions for the state government, including whether the Court of Appeals would have the power to order another branch of government to increase judicial salaries if it chose to, and how it could enforce such a ruling.

Judges say the unusual confrontation between the judiciary and the other branches of government shows the depth of their concerns over the salary issue. Because of the intense emotions on the question, some judges around the state have previously disqualified themselves from handling some cases by legislators’ law firms, saying they could not be impartial.

But the state’s chief administrative judge, Ann Pfau, said Monday that there was no evidence of any selective work slowdown. “Judges are working harder than ever,” Judge Pfau said in an interview, noting that judges are required by ethics rules to disqualify themselves from cases if they cannot be impartial.

In its decision Monday, the Judicial Conduct Commission outlined an effort by Judge Himelein over 10 months ending in April 2008 to spur action by judges across the state. In mass e-mail messages, he urged judges to refuse to hear cases filed by many law firms that employ members of the Assembly and the Senate. The commission’s decision said the e-mail messages proved that “the driving reason for his recusals was strategic, not ethical” in disqualifying himself from 11 cases.

In one of the e-mails, he called the Assembly Speaker, Sheldon Silver, a “slug” and said that the judges’ power to refuse to handle cases involving legislators’ law firms was “the only way we have any standing at all with thoseclowns.”

Referring to Mr. Silver, who is associated with the large law firm Weitz & Luxenberg, the judge wrote in a 2007 e-mail message: “When Shelley’s firm can’t get a divorce heard or will probated or a trial date, see if that doesn’t spur some action.”

In its decision released Monday, the commission noted Judge Himelein admitted having engaged in misconduct that included disqualifying himself from probate, tax and other cases involving several law firms that employ state legislators.

Although Judge Himelein is a county court judge, he also sits on State Supreme Court, Family Court and Surrogate’s Court, as is common in many upstate counties. A decision to refuse certain cases by a judge with so many judicial “hats,” could be a major obstacle for affected law firms, lawyers said.

A spokeswoman for Speaker Silver, Melissa Mansfield, declined to comment. A lawyer for Judge Himelein, Terrence M. Connors of Buffalo, said his e-mail “comments were borne out of his frustration over the legislative inaction.”

Franklin County Sheriff Ewell Hunt was arrested after a special grand jury indicted him on a misdemeanor charge of not properly maintaining records.

On Monday the grand jury issued a scathing report that described a dysfunctional agency where evidence was stored improperly and Hunt's 19-year-old daughter, Ashley, disrupted the chain of command and was paid for time she didn't work. She wasn't indicted.

The report said Ashley Hunt also accompanied deputies on stakeouts, drug buys and arrests, and once drove a department vehicle on a high-speed chase.

Hunt's attorney says the sheriff and his daughter are innocent and that the sheriff has no plans to resign.

I honestly don't know where to begin with the Goldman case, because there have been so many twists and turns this Friday that the case has been entirely turned upside down. My head is literally spinning with all of the things that happened today, so I'll try to explain them as coherently as possible. The Brazilian family was granted a stay by a judge known for going against the other judges and also known for close political ties with the family. The decision meant that the case could be drawn out until February or longer, even though it's been going on for five excruciating years.

Secretary of State Clinton commented on the TRF-2's unanimous decision to send Sean home and how she was happy that the case was going in the right direction. You can imagine how she probably felt when she found out about Marco Aurélio's little stunt, especially given the fact that the request - for Sean to be heard in court - was already denied months ago by the Supreme Court.

So suddenly, the wheels started spinning very fast. The international media is all over the story, and suddenly Brazil's embarrassing judicial system is in the spotlight once again. Since Congressman Chris Smith is with David in Brazil, word got back to Congress that there was more trouble. So Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey halted a bill that would give trade preferences to Brazil in protest.

Then this evening, David's lawyers and the AGU, the attorney general's office that represents the Brazilian government, both filed separate injunctions (to be exact, writ of mandamus) against Marco Aurélio's decision, directly challenging it.

Meanwhile, Marco Aurélio was kicked off the case and even though the STF is now on summer break, they will hold an emergency session in the next few days. It's unclear whether a definitive decision will come out of it, or if David will in fact have to wait until February.

Oh, but there's more. In reiterating its support for David, the AGU stressed that Brazil is in danger of threatening reciprocity agreements if it fails to live up to its commitment to the Hague Convention, and even said that Brazil may be tried in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights about child abduction.

It also underlined the threat of international repercussions, which the family's lawyer, Sergio Tostes, also claimed was a serious problem with the case yet again. The AGU says that David must be given custody of Sean "as a matter of urgency."

No wait - there's more!

Also this Friday, Tostes had the unbelievable chutzpah to send David a letter inviting him to have Christmas dinner at the abductor's home - that is, at Sean's grandmother's house. It's their way of trying to make it seem like they have made Sean available to David all along and that they're friendly with David, even though they refused to let him visit for five years, returned his packages and letters and gifts, refused to let him speak to Sean by phone or e-mail, and the little fact that David received death threats when he refused to give up the legal battle.

David only managed to see Sean in early 2009 under court order, accompanied by court marshals, a US congressman, and several people the Brazilian family ordered to be in the same room at all times with David. The last time he saw Sean was in June, though the family refused to let Sean leave the condo complex and subjected him to obvious psychological torture and
parental alienation during the visit.

I swear, there's more.

During a press conference today, Tostes also said that the abducting family is ready to negotiate. This is the absolute last thing I expected to happen, and is due to two things: 1) they know they are going to lose the legal battle - rumors are swirling that the higher courts are fully ready to give custody to David, and mostly 2) it seems to me that political pressure is coming from very high up in the Brazilian and American governments like never before, since this is turning into an international affairs crisis
yet again.

However, this isn't exactly up for negotiation - they committed international child abduction, among many other things, and the law is crystal clear that Sean's custody must be tried in New Jersey. So I'm not sure how they exactly expect to negotiate, but that remains to be seen.

There's more!

Even though the Brazilian family is making a last ditch effort at being diplomatic, they also mentioned during the same press conference that they will go after David with "evidence" and "prove that he's an unfit father." Epic fail.

In other news, in a great article from Seth Kugel, the tide of public opinion in Brazil finally seems to be moving in the right direction, as the lies fade away and people realize what is actually going on. It made me extremely happy.

Earlier this week I was more pessimistic than ever, but things have taken an unbelievable turn for the better and this house of cards may fall just yet.

South Carolina's high unemployment and slow tax collections are likely to put more people out of work or cut paychecks as the state's budget oversight board decided Tuesday to cut 5 percent from state budgets to keep the state's $5 billion spending plan balanced.

The $238.2 million reduction ordered by the Budget and Control Board means across-the-board spending cuts, but the public schools, the state's colleges, health care, welfare and prisons take the largest total hits in spending. In September, the board cut 4 percent from the state's budget to head off potential deficits, but the economy has continued to lose steam.

State tax collections have fallen sharply. South Carolina's 12 percent unemployment rate in October was the nation's fifth highest, a leading cause of plunging state tax collections.

Tuesday's reduction means a $100.5 million loss for the state's public schools in the wake of an $85.4 million cut in September. Schools had lost $513 million in the previous fiscal year, depleting reserves and raising the specter of thousands of teachers losing their jobs. While federal stimulus cash blunted that, districts are again fretting cuts to payrolls and programs.

"This goes above and beyond what I think many districts were trying to plan for and sends them back to the drawing board," said Scott Price, the lobbyist for the South Carolina School Boards Association. It will translate into furloughs and unfilled positions.

"That leads to things like increased class size. Things that aren't core programs would be on the chopping block," Price said.

Meanwhile, the state's Department of Health and Human Services loses $38.3 million from its Medicaid programs. Agency director Emma Forkner said last week she might not be able to handle that reduction without breaking state and federal laws or running a deficit.

State colleges lose $23 million, with the University of South Carolina giving up $6.7 million and Clemson University nearly $6 million.

The Department of Corrections loses $15.8 million. Agency director Jon Ozmint asked the board to let his prison system run a $13 million deficit in an effort to avoid telling his guards to take five more days of unpaid days off on top of the five furlough days they've already taken.

She is alleged mistress #11 in the ongoing saga of Tiger Woods' apparent affairs and she's wanted by the Department of Social and Health Services.

The television show "Inside Edition" claims Tiger's latest alleged mistress is Joslyn James who could be seen dancing at an adult entertainment convention in Las Vegas last year.

Her real name is Veronica Siwik-Daniels and she appears on the "30 most wanted" list of Washington State's DSHS.

The Web site claims she owes more than $12,000 in child support for her 10-year-old daughter. It lists Daniels' hometown as Las Vegas.

The South Carolina chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers issued a strongly-worded statement Saturday in support of Family Court Judge F.P. "Charlie" Segars-Andrews.

The judge, who lives in Mount Pleasant and has served on the bench more than 16 years, may be ineligible for reappointment next year because the state Judicial Merit Selection Commission has found her unqualified because of an ethics issue.

"This is a bizarre event in our history and sets an extremely bad precedent," the academy's statement reads. "There needs to be absolute transparency, not meetings behind closed doors on this critical issue," an apparent reference to the commission's decision Wednesday to adjourn to closed session four times.

While the commission's decision won't be final until it issues a written report, members have voted 7-3 to find Segars-Andrews unqualified because she ruled in a Clarendon County divorce case even though one attorney involved shared in a lucrative case with her husband's law firm, among other things.

The matrimonial lawyers group is asking the commission to delay any vote on her until one of its members, University of South Carolina professor emeritus John Freeman issues his report. Freeman is the sole commissioner to have found Segars-Andrews qualified all along.

"We believe the commission members and the public should be able to read Professor Freeman's unbiased, non-political, expert opinion before a vote is taken," the academy said.

It also noted that the S.C. Court of Appeals and the Judicial Conduct Commission found no wrongdoing in Segars-Andrews' handling of the divorce case, so the academy noted the commission, "for the first time in its history, is essentially impeaching a judge who has been found innocent of any wrongdoing by the existing legal system."

Commission chairman and Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell has said the commission's final report on the judge could be done by Christmas.

Authorities have accused a 64-year-old clerk of a rural South Carolina town with stealing more than $35,000.

State Law Enforcement Division officials said Patricia Fowler was arrested Tuesday and charged with embezzlement of public funds. Williston is about 50 miles south of Columbia, with a population of about 3,300. The town clerk is accused of taking $35,734 since March.