DC Judge Denies Grandmother to Hide His Reckless Endangerment of Child by Being Tricked by Abusive Father to Award Him Custody



“We know dat ain’t nobody kill Jim Crow, he slipped behind da’ bush dere an’ jus chang his ‘perance, den’ he runs up inta’ da corthous’ 
an dere he been hidin’ eber since and wakin' roun, wid black robes on, dey is wurse dan de’ Klan,” – unidentified former slave, 1876.

     The purpose of this article is to expose to the public judicial misconduct in a child custody and welfare case so gross, as to amount reckless and deliberate endangerment of a little black girl. It is now an irrefutable fact that not only criminal convictions coming not only of the District of Columbia “Superior” court, but the affirmations of those convictions by the D.C. Appeals court, are without legal and factual credibility. Recent revelations that a yet undetermined number of completely innocent people were not only charged with crime, but were prosecuted, pressured to plead guilty in most cases or convicted at trial in others. Many are imprisoned and appeal only to be denied, and kept in prison for many years simply because the system pretends that it is infallible. The Constitutional requirements of “probable cause, fair trials, due process, and “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” simply do play a controlling role, if any, in the conduct of many judges  in the DC courts. 
    
     Although the media has focused entirely on those cases of wrongful conviction where the person was imprisoned for a decade or more, the practice of obtaining wrongful convictions goes on more so in misdemeanor cases and unfortunately, the general public is trained to underestimate the impact and use of misdemeanor convictions. The causes behind these wrongful convictions are not innocent errors, nor mistakes, but deliberate wrongful acts of malfeasance in order to obtain convictions or to dispossess black and poor people that stand before the bench in criminal and civil matters. Even though the chief judge of the “Superior” court, Lee Satterfield formed an advisory commission supposedly to improve the judicial process following the revelations of the numerous wrongful convictions, the commission’s recommendations seem to be more about explaining away and minimizing the issue. The commission looked at issues of using “jail house snitches,” maintaining forensic evidence post trial, and even said something about police and prosecutorial misconduct. However, it appears that no thought was given to the contribution made to wrongful convictions and decades in prison by the judiciary. 
     
    This then brings us to the case of a little black child who right now has been left in an abusive situation just because a judge of the court does not want to admit that he screwed up royally in a child custody case, one that had already been settled by previous judges. In order to protect the identity of the child, her name and those of the parties have been changed, except for that of the judge, Alfred Irving. The case began as a custody case, the separation of the parents being caused by domestic violence by the father against the mother, to whom custody was awarded. The father then violates the court’s order by kidnapping the child and keeping her away from the mother for five-years. Eventually another judge orders the father to return the child to the mother, but no action is taken to prosecute him for the kidnap. Within a year the father kidnaps the child a second time, waits a year, then files back into the “Superior” court for it to void the prior orders and award physical custody and legal custody to him. The father’s motion is heard by Alfred Irving, it is kept in the jacket and under the same case number, so Irving had the court record before him. 
     
     Disregarding the history of domestic violence, questions by previous judges as to the character of the father, Irving simply grants the motion on the basis that the mother failed to appear. However, had Irving questioned her absence as he should have and simply checked the address on the return of service, he would have seen that service was made at an address where the father knew that the mother did not live, work, or frequent. When the paternal grandmother, learned of what had happened, she filed a motion to intervene on the basis that the court ignored the issue of child abuse. Alfred Irving, instead of acting promptly to then hear the motion, totally disregarded it. The local attorney the grandmother had hired turned out to be lazy and unaccountable, raising no complaint to the fact that it was five-months before Irving took any action on the Max’s motion, and then that was only to hold a “status” hearing. Irving had never acted on or proceeded on the motion, which should have been heard no later than twenty-days after it was filed, if not earlier considering that it raised substantial documented allegations of child abuse. 
     
    When the grandmother had had enough of the obstructionist conduct by the attorney and Irving, she contacted ITJ and soon, had a plan in place to gain greater control over events, first by ridding herself of the two-bit lawyer.  The grandmother lives in another state some distance away, there is no point for her to fly all the way to D.C. for a “status hearing,” so she could requested to “participate” in the hearing by conference call, which Albert Irving approved. However, the moment the grandmother informed the two bit attorney and Irving that she no longer represented her, all of a sudden the grandmother disappeared according to Irving. He refused to go any further, claiming that all of a sudden the grandmother had “failed to appear,” even though she was still there on the phone and Irving continued to talk to her. Irving told the grandmother that he would not proceed any further until she personally appeared and arbitrarily set the next court date for October 2nd, which is nine-months away.
    
    In a subsequent denial of a motion for him to remove himself for bias and incompetence so gross, as to amount to reckless child endangerment, Irving claimed that by the grandmother firing the attorney, it was for some unspecified reason proceeding on became "impossible." to proceed. The grandmother is an educated, intelligent, and accomplished black woman, more than capable of making decisions for herself and expressing her concerns as set forth in her motion. The motion raised the issue of child abuse in context to the history of ongoing domestic violence, a factor not given much consideration throughout the case. Irving had foolishly given the father full custody, almost whimsically, disregarding all of the documented indicators of abuse in the court record, and placed the child where she is exposed to the greatest harm. Irving tried to claim reliance on a report of a GAL (guardian ad litem), but which not only failed to reference the history of domestic violence, but also makes no mention as to the substantial allegations of child abuse. The grandmother informed the GAL about what she witnessed, about other witnesses, documentation of incidents, and even had pictures and a letter written by her granddaughter pleading with her father to stop beating her. 
     
   The GAL did not investigate any of it and it was not mentioned in the report, which instead painted an unrealistic Rosie scenario, but which Irving placed over everything else. Irving claims that based on the GAL report alone, he concluded that the child was in a “stable” environment and he did not want to disrupt that, in total disregard of the allegations of abuse and the fact that his order awarding custody to the father was obtained by fraud. Albert Irving was appointed to the DC bench in 2008, along with a few other people who were hack attorneys in the Department of Justice, a troubled bunch who routinely and casually breaks the law in criminal and civil matters. The grandmother flew to DC a week after demanding that Irving then remove himself, she came to have the hearing on her motion that Irving had denied by simply not acting. Due to the removal issue, Irving should have been the last judge to receive and act on her motion, and he himself was ethically required to pass it on to another judge even if it were brought to him by the clerk. What Irving did instead of the right thing, he chose to continue doing the wrong thing and left the grandmother sitting in the hallway of the courthouse for nearly three-hours while he crafted another baseless summary denial, which he had delivered to her by one of his aides. 
      
   Irving had the grandmother to travel over 1000 miles just to be left sitting in a hallway and served more of the same injustice. The grandmother then took the matter to the chief judge, Lee Satterfield and awaits action from him, which should be rapid not only to ensure justice, but to ensure the health and safety of a little black nine-year old child. Thus far, it has been nearly a week and the grandmother has yet to hear a thing back from Satterfield. Since 1998, ITJ has worked on building a record as to the racist, corrupt, and entirely unworkable nature of the judiciary in the District of Columbia, engaging it through basic litigation. Kwasi Seitu, Lead Fellow of ITJ, says that “the entire system is, and always has been, RCTU (Racist, Corrupt, and Thoroughly Unworkable). Judges of both the D.C. “Superior” court and the Appeals court have openly engaged in criminal malfeasance in order to convict and sustain convictions they knew were wrongful. And the misconduct does not just occur in criminal matters, it goes on in civil matters to defeat litigants on behalf of landlords, businesses, and corporations. It goes on in family court and juvenile matters, and mental health cases. 
     
   Considerations of race, class, and fraternal connections routinely outweigh the consideration of law, fact, truth, and justice. One of the first public interest cases ITJ initiated in the DC courts was to address the scandalous practice of repeat billing and collections on paid or dismissed tickets by the Department of Public Works (DPW), which the judges have spent the past fifteen-years doing everything outside of the law and their oath of office to thwart the case proceeding in the manner prescribed by law, The result has been the cover-up and perpetuation of a criminal extortion racket posing as government, the practice continues to this day with no end in sight, and primarily due to the obstructionist malfeasance of judges.