Editorspeak
Imagine a Paul Cellucci with a brain and a balanced checkbook. Toss in a sincere belief in the politically correct social issues he panders to and a missionary zeal for the role of government as social engineer. The result is L. Scott Harshbarger, current Massachusetts Attorney General and Democratic candidate for Governor, and your worst nightmare.
The Attorney General's job is to represent the legal interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth. One would think that someone raised to such office would have some rudimentary knowledge of the pillars upon which our legal system is based: stuff like due process, equal protection, and innocence until guilt is proven, etc.
Harshbarger was questioned about the state's notorious Registry of Civil Restraining Orders - where everyone ever issued a 209A is listed. What happens if a court finds that an emergency 209A was taken out under fraudulent circumstances? If the charges alleged at the ex parte hearing are proven false at the ten-day hearing? Why can't an innocent victim of restraining order abuse be removed from the Registry?
"The state is not in the business of protecting reputations." So spoke Scott Harshbarger. And it's true. The state's district attorneys will not let anyone off the registry, ever, regardless of circumstances. The only known exception that has stood up on appeal is Judge Beverly Boorstein's decision to remove a lesbian attorney, because it "may preclude her from adoption of a child and preclude her from advancement in her career."
Meanwhile, Acting Governor Paul Cellucci wants to make subsequent violations of 209A orders carry a mandatory ten-year sentence.
The primary is one week away, but if the present situation holds, one of these two men will be chosen by voters to lead the state for the next four years. Political pragmatism dictates we hope for the lesser of two evils. But unless the unexpected happens in both primaries on Sept. 15, fathers' advocates will have a very difficult time justifying any vote for Governor in November.
The Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court defends the role of victim's advocates in the state's courts. The state Guidelines for Judicial Practice require the courts to assist all advocates, whether they come from the DA's office, a law school, or in fact, anywhere. Where possible, the court is to provide space within the courthouses for them to do their "advocating" and "witnessing."
Is there no one in the court system with the courage to stand up and speak the obvious: Victim's advocates in the courts clearly impact the impartiality of the judicial process. There is no gray area. This mocks justice. It's wrong.
Fatherhood Coalition members have written to Dunphy to demand the removal of the advocates. In one reply, Assistant Administrator William Ryan feigns ignorance that anything is amiss. He requests information about any improper actions by advocates. We have heard cases where the advocates tutor "victims" on how to hold their head so as to look afraid; what words to say so the judge will grant the 209A.
But we don't think any evidence is necessary to justify examining the role of some advocates, because the presence alone of these advocates corrupts justice. They create a climate and environment of assumed guilt for alleged "abusers."
The advocates must be removed from the courts. Write the Chief Justice and demand that the integrity of the courts be restored. Battered women's advocates: Out of our courts!